draft k-10 australian curriculum consultation report · draft k-10 curriculum consultation report...
Post on 25-Jun-2020
4 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Insync Surveys Pty Ltd
Melbourne Phone: +61 3 9909 9209 • Fax: +61 3 9614 4460
Sydney Phone: +61 2 8081 2000 • Fax: +61 2 9955 8929
Perth Phone: +61 8 6461 6485 • Fax: +61 8 6461 6455
Address PO Box 446, Flinders Lane, VIC 8009, Australia
Website www.insyncsurveys.com.au
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and
Reporting Authority
Draft K-10 Australian
Curriculum
Consultation Report
July 2010
June 2010
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 1
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................ 1
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... 4
List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. 5
Executive Summary.................................................................................................................................... 8
1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 21
2. Methodology ..................................................................................................................................... 22
Consultation Processes and Data Collection Overview .................................................................. 22
Online Survey ............................................................................................................................ 22
Consultation Portal Data ............................................................................................................ 24
State/Territory Consultation Forums ........................................................................................... 24
National Learning Area Forums ................................................................................................... 25
Peak Body and Public Feedback Submissions .............................................................................. 25
School Trial Feedback – Online Pilot Survey ................................................................................. 26
3. Nature of Respondents .................................................................................................................... 27
Total Number of Respondents .................................................................................................... 27
Online Survey Respondents ........................................................................................................ 28
State/Territory Consultation Forum Respondents ......................................................................... 29
National Learning Area Forum Participants .................................................................................. 30
Nature of Peak Body and Public Feedback Submissions ............................................................... 31
School Trial Feedback – Online Pilot Survey participants............................................................... 31
4. Summary of Key Strengths .............................................................................................................. 32
Key Strengths: Across the Curriculum .......................................................................................... 32
Key Strengths by Learning Area .................................................................................................. 32
5. Consultation Findings – Across the Curriculum ........................................................................... 34
Summary of Findings ................................................................................................................. 34
Online Survey Findings ............................................................................................................... 35
Consultation forum findings ........................................................................................................ 40
Consultation Portal Data Findings ............................................................................................... 49
6. Consultation Findings – Learning Area ......................................................................................... 51
English...................................................................................................................................... 51
Summary of findings .......................................................................................................................... 51
Online survey findings........................................................................................................................ 52
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 2
Consultation forum findings .............................................................................................................. 55
Feedback from Peak Body submissions ............................................................................................ 59
Feedback from public submissions ................................................................................................... 60
Consultation portal data findings ...................................................................................................... 61
Mathematics ............................................................................................................................. 63
Summary of findings .......................................................................................................................... 63
Online survey findings........................................................................................................................ 64
Consultation forum findings .............................................................................................................. 68
Feedback from peak body submissions ............................................................................................ 72
Feedback from public submissions ................................................................................................... 73
Consultation portal data findings ...................................................................................................... 73
Science ..................................................................................................................................... 75
Summary of findings .......................................................................................................................... 75
Online survey findings........................................................................................................................ 76
Consultation forum findings .............................................................................................................. 81
Feedback from Peak Body submissions ............................................................................................ 85
Feedback from public submissions ................................................................................................... 86
Consultation portal data findings ...................................................................................................... 86
History ...................................................................................................................................... 88
Summary of findings .......................................................................................................................... 88
Online survey findings........................................................................................................................ 89
Consultation forum findings .............................................................................................................. 93
Feedback from Peak Body submissions ............................................................................................ 97
Feedback from public submissions ................................................................................................... 98
Consultation portal data findings ...................................................................................................... 99
7. Consultation Findings – Stage of Schooling .............................................................................. 101
Years K-2 ................................................................................................................................ 101
Online survey findings...................................................................................................................... 101
Consultation forum findings ............................................................................................................ 104
Years 3-6 ................................................................................................................................ 108
Online survey findings...................................................................................................................... 108
Consultation forum findings ............................................................................................................ 111
Years 7-10 .............................................................................................................................. 114
Online survey findings...................................................................................................................... 114
Consultation forum findings ............................................................................................................ 117
8. Consultation Findings – State/Territory ........................................................................................ 121
Australian Capital Territory (ACT) ............................................................................................... 121
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 3
New South Wales (NSW) .......................................................................................................... 124
Northern Territory (NT) ............................................................................................................. 133
Queensland (QLD) ................................................................................................................... 140
South Australia (SA) ................................................................................................................. 145
Tasmania (TAS) ....................................................................................................................... 148
Victoria (VIC)............................................................................................................................ 153
Western Australia (WA) ............................................................................................................. 158
9. Other Feedback: Non-curriculum Issues .................................................................................... 163
10. School Trial Feedback – Online Pilot Survey .............................................................................. 166
11. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 169
Appendices ............................................................................................................................................. 170
Appendix A. Online Survey (K-10) .............................................................................................. 170
Appendix B. Qualitative/Thematic Analysis Code Book ................................................................ 175
Appendix C. State and Territory Forum Questions – Learning Area ............................................... 188
Appendix D. State and Territory Forum Questions – Stage of Schooling ........................................ 196
Appendix E. National Forum Workshop Recording Form – English ................................................ 201
Appendix F. National Forum Workshop Recording Form – History ................................................ 202
Appendix G. National Forum Workshop Recording Form – Mathematics ....................................... 203
Appendix H. National Forum Workshop Recording Form – Science .............................................. 204
Appendix I. List of Peak Body and Public Submissions ................................................................ 205
Appendix J. Australian Curriculum Consultation Portal – Teacher Questionnaire (School Trial)........ 219
Appendix K. List of Online Pilot Trial Schools .............................................................................. 222
Appendix L. Mathematics national forum – Specific content/sequencing recommendations .......... 226
Appendix M. Mathematics national forum – Specific achievement standard recommendations ..... 228
Appendix N. Science national forum – Specific content/sequencing-related recommendations ..... 229
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 4
List of Tables
Table 1: The total sample composition by consultation process
Table 2: The online survey sample composition
Table 3: The State/Territory consultation forum sample composition
Table 4: The number of learning area forms submitted by State/Territory
Table 5: The number of stage of schooling forms submitted by State/Territory
Table 6: The national consultation forum sample composition
Table7: The online pilot – school trials sample composition
Table 8: Low agreement survey statements – respondents across the curriculum
Table 9: Achievement standards statements – forum participants‘ views across the curriculum
Table 10: Low agreement survey statements – English curriculum respondents
Table 11: Achievement standards statements – English curriculum forum participants
Table 12: Low agreement survey statements – mathematics curriculum respondents
Table 13: Achievement standards statements – mathematics curriculum forum participants
Table 14: Low agreement survey statements – science curriculum respondents
Table: 15: Science content statements – State/Territory forum participant responses
Table 16: Low agreement survey statements – history curriculum respondents
Table 17: Achievement standards statements – history curriculum forum participants
Table 18: Low agreement survey statements – K-2 curriculum respondents
Table 19: Low agreement statements – K-2 forum participants
Table 20: Low agreement survey statements – 3-6 curriculum respondents
Table 21: Low agreement statements – 3-6 forum participants
Table 22: Low agreement survey statements – 7-10 curriculum respondents
Table 23: Low agreement statements – 7-10 forum participants
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 5
List of Figures
Figure 1: Proportion of ―all learning areas‖ responses to: ―The rationale and aims of the learning
area(s) provide a clear foundation and direction for the curriculum‖
Figure 2: Proportion of ―all learning areas‖ responses to: ―The organisation of the learning area(s)
provides a coherent view of the key elements and features of the curriculum‖
Figure 3: Proportion of respondents indicating clear evidence of the general capabilities across the
draft national curriculum
Figure 4: Overall proportion of forum responses to: ―The content at each year level is manageable
and able to be taught in depth and within the time available‖
Figure 5: Overall proportion of forum responses to: ―The placement and sequencing of content is
appropriate at and across all year levels‖
Figure 6: Proportion of English learning area responses to: ―The rationale and aims of the learning
area(s) provide a clear foundation and direction for the curriculum‖
Figure 7: Proportion of English learning area responses to: ―The draft content descriptions cover the
important content for this learning area‖
Figure 8: Proportion of English forum responses to: ―The placement and sequencing of content is
appropriate at and across all year levels‖
Figure 9: Proportion of English forum responses to: ―The content at each year level is coherent
across the strands‖
Figure 10: Proportion of mathematics learning area responses to: ―The rationale and aims of the
learning area(s) provide a clear foundation and direction for the curriculum‖
Figure 11: Proportion of mathematics learning area responses to: ―The organisation of the learning
area(s) provides a coherent view of the key elements and features of the curriculum‖
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 6
Figure 12: Proportion of mathematics forum responses to: ―The content at each year level is
manageable and able to be taught in depth and within the time available‖
Figure 13: Proportion of mathematics forum responses to: ―The placement and sequencing of
content is appropriate at and across all year levels‖
Figure 14: Proportion of science learning area responses to: ―The rationale and aims of the learning
area(s) provide a clear foundation and direction for the curriculum‖
Figure 15: Proportion of science learning area responses to: ―The organisation of the learning area(s)
provides a coherent view of the key elements and features of the curriculum‖
Figure 16: Proportion of science forum responses to: ―The achievement standards clearly describe
the expected learning for each year level‖
Figure 17: Proportion of science forum responses to: ―You could confidently assess student
achievement of these standards‖
Figure 18: Proportion of history learning area responses to: ―The rationale and aims of the learning
area(s) provide a clear foundation and direction for the curriculum‖
Figure 19: Proportion of history learning area responses to: ―The organisation of the learning area(s)
provides a coherent view of the key elements and features of the curriculum‖
Figure 20: Proportion of history forum responses to: ―The content at each year level is manageable
and able to be taught in depth and within the time available‖
Figure 21: Proportion of history forum responses to: ―The placement and sequencing of content is
appropriate at and across all year levels‖
Figure 22: Proportion of K-2 survey responses to: ―The draft content descriptions are clear and
unambiguous‖
Figure 23: Proportion of K-2 survey responses to: ―The draft content descriptions are sequenced
appropriately‖
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 7
Figure 24: Proportion of K-2 survey responses to: ―The draft content elaborations illustrate the
content descriptions effectively‖
Figure 25: Proportion of K-2 survey responses to: ―The draft content elaborations illustrate the
content descriptions sufficiently
Figure 26: Proportion of K-2 forum responses to: ―The curriculum is inclusive of the range of
learners‖
Figure 27: Proportion of 3-6 survey responses to: ―The rationale and aims of the learning area(s)
provide a clear foundation and direction for the curriculum‖
Figure 28: Proportion of 3-6 survey responses to: ―The organisation of the learning area(s) provides a
coherent view of the key elements and features of the curriculum‖
Figure 29: Proportion of 3-6 forum responses to: ―The curriculum is inclusive of the range of
learners‖
Figure 30: Proportion of 7-10 survey responses to: ―The rationale and aims of the learning area(s)
provide a clear foundation and direction for the curriculum‖
Figure 31: Proportion of 7-10 survey responses to: ―The organisation of the learning area(s) provides
a coherent view of the key elements and features of the curriculum‖
Figure 32: Proportion of 7-10 survey responses to: ―The draft curriculum takes into account the
needs of all students‖
Figure 33: Proportion of 7-10 survey responses to: ―The draft curriculum is not overcrowded‖
Figure 34: Proportion of 7-10 forum responses to: ―The curriculum is inclusive of the range of
learners‖
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 8
Executive Summary
The development of an Australian curriculum from Kindergarten to Year 12 has commenced, seeking
to outline the essential skills, knowledge and capabilities that all young Australians are entitled to.
The Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (―ACARA‖) is responsible for the
development of this rigorous, world-class national curriculum with the initial focus on the learning
areas of English, mathematics, science and history (phase 1), followed by work in the areas of
languages, geography and the arts (phase 2).
At present, a draft national curriculum for Kindergarten to Year 10 in English, mathematics, science
and history has been written. This writing stage has culminated in a nationwide public consultation of
the draft materials.
Purpose
This report details the consolidated feedback of the ACARA consultation of draft national curriculum
materials. From March to May 2010, feedback was sought in relation to the draft curriculum for the
four learning areas of English, mathematics, science and history from Kindergarten to Year 10. This
report outlines the methodology used to collect and analyse consultation data, in addition to the
qualitative and quantitative feedback itself. This analysis of all submissions and feedback has been
provided to inform decisions on potential amendments or refinements to the draft Australian
Curriculum as it is developed into a final Australian Curriculum.
Background
In developing phase 1 of the Australian Curriculum (English, mathematics, science and history), a
draft national curriculum for Kindergarten to Year 10 in these learning areas was made available for
nationwide consultation from March to May 2010. ACARA encouraged the involvement and
participation of all stakeholders in providing feedback.
Through consultation on the draft national curriculum, feedback was sought in relation to the
coverage and clarity of content and achievement standards, the sequence and placement of content
and achievement standards, the manageability of the curriculum for teachers and the digital layout
and format of the online materials.
Insync Surveys was commissioned by ACARA to provide a methodology and process for the collection
and analysis of feedback from this consultation process.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 9
Methodology and consultation participants
Engagement with a wide range of stakeholder groups provided significant breadth of opinion and both
quantitative and qualitative feedback. Feedback was sought from teachers, school leaders, students,
professional associations, universities, teacher unions, parents, industry and the general public. A
brief summary of the process undertaken by ACARA and Insync Surveys is set out below. The outline
includes the number of participants who were involved in each consultation process.
Online survey & consultation portal feedback
1 March – 30 May 2010
Teachers, other stakeholders in the broader education community and the general public were
provided with the opportunity to review the draft K-10 Australian Curriculum online. Targeted
feedback was gathered via completion of an online survey and/or via online mark-up of the draft
materials.
The online survey comprised 53 questions: 40 rating-scale questions and 13 open-ended
questions across eight broad categories:
1. Content descriptions
2. Content elaborations
3. Achievement standards
4. Structure of the curriculum
5. General capabilities
6. Cross-curriculum dimensions
7. Digital layout
8. World class curriculum
Number of respondents:
3650 responses were received to the online survey
58,357 pieces of consultation portal data were received. After removing irrelevant and
repetitive feedback, 26,039 pieces of data remained
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 10
State and Territory consultation forums
March – April 2010
Key stakeholder representatives gathered across every State and Territory to comment on the
draft K-10 Australian Curriculum. Forums were conducted in partnership with State and Territory
curriculum and school authorities with participants including teachers, school leaders, students,
professional associations, universities, teacher unions, parents, industry groups, and education
authority officers.
Forum participants were allocated into groups and focused their discussions on either: i) the draft
curriculum of a specific learning area, or ii) the overall curriculum for a particular stage of
schooling (i.e. K-2, 3-6, 7-10). Group-level responses were provided via a learning area form or
stage of schooling form respectively. Both forms comprised rating-scale questions and open-
ended questions.
Number of participants:
935 participants were selected by State/Territory authorities
136 groups provided a response via a learning area form
125 groups provided a response via a stage of schooling form
National learning area forums
15 April – 23 April 2010
Key stakeholder representatives gathered in Sydney to examine the key issues from the State and
Territory consultation forums and provide advice on proposed improvements to the curriculum.
Separate forums were conducted for English (23 April 2010), mathematics (15 April 2010),
science (16 April 2010), and history (22 April 2010).
Number of participants:
325 participants were selected from each State and Territory, representing catholic,
independent and government schools
English forum (77 registered participants), mathematics (79 registered participants), science
(83 registered participants), and history (86 registered participants)
Peak body and other written submissions
March – June 2010
Within the allocated timeframe, 209 written submissions were received from 186 peak bodies
covering educational authorities, schools, universities, business or professional associations,
community organisations, and government organisations.
485 written submissions were received from individuals in the general public.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 11
School trial feedback – online pilot survey
March – June 2010
Nominated schools participated in the development of teaching/learning programs from the draft
curriculum (K-10).
Survey feedback was received from 87 trial schools.
Analysis of quantitative responses to the online survey and consultation forum feedback was
undertaken at the item level with straight responses calculated for each rating-scale question.
Where qualitative feedback was received, a statistically representative1 subset of comments was
randomly extracted for analysis. Each comment was manually coded using pre-defined themes and
then content analysed for recurring themes and general trends. All peak body submissions were
summarised and content analysed.
Key strengths and areas for further development across the curriculum
This review of the consolidated feedback across all consultation processes has identified a number of
key strengths of the draft Australian Curriculum (K-10). The detailed findings are presented in Chapter
5 of the full report. In general, stakeholders have indicated that across the curriculum:
Strengths
There is positive support for the overall direction of the curriculum. Respondents indicated clarity
with the rationale and aims that frame each learning area and the broad content of each area is
generally well supported.
The provision of an online curriculum is generally well supported. Overall, the digital format is
seen as user friendly, assisted by the filtering function, and the curriculum can be easily
accessed depending on access to the internet. Those who expressed concern about the online
curriculum identified issues such as the layout, in particular inconsistent headings, and the initial
difficulty in finding information.
1 A confidence level of 99% (+/- 3%) was selected across all sampling conducted
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 12
There is positive support for the inclusion of general capabilities and cross-curriculum
dimensions in supporting interdisciplinary learning. Respondents indicated that specifically
literacy, numeracy and information and communication technologies (―ICT‖) were clearly evident
across the four learning areas in the draft curriculum. Feedback from online survey respondents
indicated that the cross-curriculum dimensions were evident across the curriculum. Written
submissions, however, highlighted the need for these dimensions to be further clarified and
more consistently included in content descriptions, achievement standards and elaborations.
Areas for further development
A number of key challenges and issues were also identified across the K-10 draft national curriculum.
Taking into account all of the feedback received, these issues relate to:
Catering for students with diverse and special needs. Concerns were expressed across all
consultation media that the curriculum does not take into account all students, nor allows
teachers the flexibility required in teaching students with diverse learning abilities, from diverse
backgrounds and from regional areas.
The draft Australian Curriculum was considered content heavy. Consistent feedback highlighted
overcrowding across the curriculum and that this may detract from the depth and quality of
understanding achievable with over half of the State and Territory consultation forum
participants (58%) expressing this as a concern.
The need for clearer achievement standards that specify the depth of what students are
expected to learn at each year level was consistently raised. The purpose of the achievement
standards needs to be clearly articulated with stronger links to assessment and reporting.
A broader range of annotated work samples was requested in order to exemplify the standards
(A-E). Multi-modal (i.e. written, video, aural, etc.) samples would be more beneficial, particularly if
accompanied by rubrics representing a greater range of assessment tasks. Two-thirds (67%) of
the online respondents indicated that the annotated work samples did not assist in illustrating
and exemplifying the achievement standards.
In considering feedback across the stages of schooling, there were calls for a stronger focus on
transition points in order to review the leaps in content and specialisation. While this observation
was generally made for all transition points, it was specifically highlighted in the transition from
Year 6 to Year 7. Ensuring a smooth transition was a particular concern in working with students
with diverse learning abilities.
Revision of curriculum nomenclature was recommended. There was general feedback across the
curriculum that improved clarity is required with regards to language use, terminology and
descriptions. Typical feedback included the consistent use of terminology both within and across
learning areas. This would assist in providing clearer guidance for teachers in terms of
sequencing and working with students with diverse abilities.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 13
Summary of findings by learning area
Across all consultation processes, participants provided feedback specific to one of four learning
areas: English, mathematics, science or history. Review of the aggregated feedback for each learning
area highlights a number of specific strengths and issues. Detailed findings are presented in Chapter 6
of the full report.
English
Strengths
The majority (80%) of State and Territory consultation forum participants considered the overall
aims and rationale to be clear and appropriate. On the whole, the language, literacy, and
literature strands were generally well received in principle, particularly the inclusion of each in
the draft curriculum and their role in highlighting the content of English.
The content descriptions were described as covering the important material young Australians
need to know and the clarity and coherence of the draft content descriptions, elaborations and
work samples were all evaluated favourably. Seventy percent of the online respondents agreed
that the content elaborations illustrated the descriptions effectively.
The majority of online survey respondents and forum participants considered the English
achievement standards to be clear and sequenced appropriately. The relationship between the
standards and how the strands and modes will be assessed, however, requires further
clarification.
The majority of online survey respondents felt that cross-curriculum material is clearly evident in
the English content descriptions, specifically indigenous history and culture (75% agreement)
and Australia‘s engagement with Asia (73% agreement). Conversely, only 58% of respondents
felt that sustainability issues are adequately covered.
Areas for further development
Concerns were expressed across all consultation media that the English curriculum does not
take into account all students, nor allows teachers the flexibility required in teaching students
with diverse learning abilities, from diverse backgrounds and from regional areas.
Consistent feedback highlighted several topics which were misplaced across year levels. In
addition, there was a perceived lack of coherence around how content was linked across the
strands. Fifty-eight percent of consultation forum participants stated that the organisation of the
learning areas provides a coherent view of the key elements and characteristics of the
curriculum.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 14
The need for English content descriptions together with achievement standards that clearly
specify the depth of what students are expected to learn at each year level was deemed
essential.
Consistent feedback highlighted that across the curriculum, there is inadequate focus on oral
language and vocabulary development, relative to reading and writing. Particularly within the
early primary years, speaking skills need to be consolidated before reading and writing. Multiple
consultation media raised the issue of a nationally approved handwriting style in keeping with a
national curriculum. Inconsistencies across States and Territories were highlighted.
Online survey respondents indicated that literacy, ICT and thinking skills were clearly evident in
the draft English content descriptions and achievement standards. Less integration of ICT was
evidenced in secondary years as opposed to a more focused development of these skills in
earlier years. Feedback indicated that the communicative potential of ICT could be better
capitalised on in the draft English curriculum.
Mathematics
Strengths
The draft content descriptions and elaborations were evaluated by the majority of respondents
across all consultation media as clear, coherent and covering the content considered important.
From the State and Territory consultation forums, 94% of participants indicated that the
rationale and aims are clear and appropriate and 87% stated that the organisation of the
learning areas provides a coherent view of the key elements and characteristics of the
curriculum.
The enhanced linkages between strands and the greater clarity now afforded to these
connections were commended.
The inclusion of real world applications of mathematics, such as calculating discounts, buying
and selling, tax and GST were considered a strength. Overall, a stronger emphasis on financial
literacy was recommended to impart sound everyday money skills in students.
Online survey respondents indicated that the general capabilities of numeracy and thinking skills
were clearly evident in the mathematics content descriptions and achievement standards.
Intercultural understanding and ethical behaviour were less evident.
Areas for further development
Consistent feedback indicated that content and achievement standards have been set too high
and are generally too difficult for the average student, although 55% of the online respondents
felt that the draft achievement standards are pitched appropriately. A stronger focus on the
sequencing of content was also raised in order to better reflect student consolidation of
concepts.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 15
Concerns were expressed that the mathematics curriculum is too content heavy, particularly in
terms of statistics, and that this may detract from the depth and understanding of other topics.
Duplication and inconsistencies both within and across the strands should be reviewed.
Further concerns were expressed across all consultation media that the mathematics curriculum
does not take into account all students, nor allows teachers the flexibility required in teaching
students with diverse learning abilities, from diverse backgrounds and from regional areas.
Consultation feedback indicated that the development of the content does not adequately
represent the proficiencies nor encourage teachers to relate the concepts from different strands.
Feedback indicated that problem solving was not sufficiently considered in the draft curriculum.
It was felt that this skill needs to be strengthened across all strands and specific reference made
to enhancing this capability within students.
Specific inclusion of ICT skills was not clearly evident in the draft mathematics curriculum across
all year levels. More rigorous linkages between content and technology need to be made in the
document along with software that can be used. Using ICT in mathematics needs to reflect a
change in thinking and not just a change in the tools used.
Guidance was sought around the appropriate stage and level to introduce calculators. Feedback
highlighted the fine line between introducing calculators too early, which may not allow students
to develop their own mathematical processing skills, and failing to incorporate calculators in
other subject areas.
The majority of online respondents indicated that the cross curriculum dimensions were not
clearly evident in the content descriptions for mathematics.
Science
Strengths
In general, positive feedback was received on the importance placed in the curriculum on
developing scientific inquiry skills and the application of these skills in everyday life. Ninety
percent of the State and Territory consultation forum participants indicated that the rationale
and aims that frame this scientific learning are clear and appropriate.
The inclusion of Science as a Human Endeavour (―SHE‖) in the curriculum was commended.
Feedback indicated that it is a vital aspect of scientific learning and should engage more
students by connecting science with culture.
The general capabilities were well integrated into the draft science curriculum with a number of
capabilities rated as clearly evident in the content descriptions and achievement standards,
specifically: teamwork, ICT, literacy, numeracy and thinking skills. The inclusion of creativity was,
however, limited.
The majority of online respondents felt that a commitment to sustainability was clearly evident in
the science content descriptions, with 79% of respondents indicating such.
Areas for further development
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 16
A common issue raised was that the Science Understanding (―SU‖) strand was content heavy
and covering it all in sufficient depth would be difficult. Specifically, geological content was over-
represented. There were also general views that content was lacking around emerging sciences
and new technologies. Sixty-one percent of consultation forum participants stated that the
organisation of the learning areas provides a coherent view of the key elements and
characteristics of the curriculum.
Consistent feedback indicated that the achievement standards are pitched too high across year
levels. Clearer standards that specify the depth of student learning required at each year level
were considered critical.
Written submissions in particular expressed that the national science curriculum requires
equipment and facilities that many primary schools and regional schools may not have (e.g.
science labs).
Forum participants and peak body submissions expressed that the science curriculum was
lacking in content around emerging sciences and new technologies. Incorporating this material
into the teaching of the traditional sciences, along with work samples that reflect this material
was suggested by some respondents in order to sufficiently explore contemporary issues.
History
Strengths
Elevating the significance of history education by ensuring its presence over the stages of
schooling was regarded by many as a positive and a key pillar in the national curriculum. The
majority (91%) of State and Territory consultation forum participants indicated that the rationale
and aims of the learning area are clear and appropriate, while 74% stated that the organisation
of the learning area provides a coherent view of the key elements and characteristics of the
curriculum.
The broad inquiry questions for each level were generally considered clear and succinct and a
vital aid to helping teachers unpack the content and skills identified for each year level.
Compared to all other learning areas, the history curriculum most clearly promoted intercultural
understanding. Indigenous history and culture, and Asia and Australia‘s engagement with Asia
were most recognised within this subject.
The majority of online respondents felt that cross-curriculum priorities are clearly evident in the
history content descriptions, specifically indigenous history and culture (82% agreement) and
Australia‘s engagement with Asia (81% agreement). Strengthening the contemporary focus in
both of these areas however was suggested in order for their inclusion to not appear superficial.
A focus on the general capabilities of literacy, intercultural understanding and thinking skills was
evident in the draft history curriculum. The development of self-management, creativity and
teamwork could be strengthened.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 17
Areas for further development
Concerns were expressed that the history curriculum is too content heavy, particularly in Years 7
to 10, and that this may detract from the depth and understanding of teaching and learning and
adequate coverage of the range of topics.
The history achievement standards were generally seen as unclear and not reflecting the
content.
Consistent feedback on the elaborations described them as not sufficiently illustrating the
content descriptions.
A lack of emphasis on contemporary history was identified; in particular around Asian history and
Australia‘s history post-WWII. In addition, a general theme across the feedback centred on how
to recognise Indigenous perspectives without the teachings appearing tokenistic.
Feedback identified a need for clearer guidelines around the teaching of overviews and depth
studies. Submissions indicated a lack of clarity around the purpose of depth studies, the
coverage of content points and the extent of material to be covered in depth studies. There was
also a reported lack of clarity around the role of the overviews in providing the context for
learning at each year level.
Summary of findings by stages of schooling
Many respondents indicated that integrated and play-based learning for K students should be
articulated in the curriculum.
The K-2 curriculum was perceived as not adequately taking into account key transition points
between early childhood learning and primary education. In particular there was a perceived
absence of linkages to the Early Years Learning Framework. Only 23% of respondents from the
State and Territory consultation forums agreed that the K-2 curriculum adequately takes into
account key transition points.
In general, Years 3-6 content descriptions and achievement standards were seen as sufficiently
challenging and provide clarity about the depth of teaching required.
A lack of continuity was consistently identified, particularly between the primary and secondary
curricula. Only 18% of respondents agreed that the Years 3-6 curriculum makes appropriate
linkages between early childhood, primary and secondary education.
Most critical feedback was received on the clarity and sequencing of Years 7-10 content
descriptions, elaboration and achievement standards.
Across all stages of learning, the Year 7-10 curriculum was considered the least inclusive of the
range of learners.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 18
Summary of findings by States and Territories
A wide range of written submissions were received across the States and Territories. Here, we
specifically refer to the key issues raised by the State and Territory educational authorities. The points
highlighted below were raised by the majority of education authorities. A detailed overview of all State
and Territory findings is presented in Chapter 8 of the detailed report.
Across the Curriculum
The diverse needs of students, particularly students with disabilities and EAL and additional
learning needs were highlighted as a particular issue requiring greater consideration.
Educational authorities put forward clear messages about managing standards for students who
are not following content year by year and multi-age contexts.
Submissions reported that indigenous culture and history are consistently incorporated into the
content descriptions, not just the elaborations.
English
The sequencing of content across years and clarity around how concepts are linked across
strands was highlighted as an issue requiring further development. The use of consistent
headings and clustering content were put forward as recommended solutions. Each State and
Territory submission details specific content areas that are over or under represented.
Achievement standards were considered to be not clear, particularly in terms of their alignment
to the strands.
Mathematics
Within the structure of the draft mathematics curriculum, consistent feedback indicated that the
three content strands do not allow for the incorporation of proficiencies.
Content sequencing was highlighted as an area of concern with educational authorities
specifying the years in which content and achievement standards are sequenced inappropriately
(e.g., for NSW K-2 is lower than expected; 3-6 is higher).
Science
Unifying ideas are not evident in the organisation of the draft science curriculum. The
relationship between the rationale, strands and standards needs to be made more explicit.
The distribution of science content across the strands and across years was considered
inconsistent and overlapping with other subject areas.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 19
History
There was feedback across the educational authorities that the content to be covered was too
ambitious with recommendations to reduce, reorganise and integrate content. Specifically,
consistent feedback suggested removing the overlap in content across Years 5-6 and 9-10.
The approach to indigenous history and culture was consistently referenced with feedback
indicating that it is ―tokenistic‖ and that the draft curriculum does not prescribe sufficient
content to ensure that Aboriginal perspectives are integrated across all year levels.
Summary of non-curriculum issues
When reviewing the consolidated consultation feedback, a number of additional recurring issues
outside of the curriculum were identified:
Professional development will be required in not only up-skilling teachers on the use of the
online curriculum, but also in providing teachers with the requisite knowledge and skill to
effectively teach the new content.
There are resourcing implications for regional and small schools that may not have sufficient
access to the internet or may not have the equipment and facilities to teach the new curriculum.
National assessment guidelines are sought in line with the national curriculum documents.
Guidelines on how to teach the year-level-based curriculum with composite classes are required.
Conclusion
Overall, the consolidated findings of all submissions and feedback indicate that further refinement of
the draft Australian Curriculum (K-10) would be supported by key stakeholders and the Australian
public.
A number of key issues were identified across the K-10 draft national curriculum with strong feedback
around the ability of the draft national curriculum to cater for students with diverse and special needs.
Concerns were expressed across all learning areas that the curriculum does not take into account all
students, nor allows teachers the flexibility required in teaching students with diverse learning abilities,
from diverse backgrounds and from regional areas. In particular, gifted student, ESL students,
students with learning difficulties or disabilities and those from low socio-economic backgrounds were
considered to be disadvantaged by the draft curriculum.
The draft Australian Curriculum was also considered content heavy, with consistent feedback
highlighting overcrowding across the curriculum. It was thought that this may detract from the depth
and quality of understanding achievable. Furthermore, the need for clearer achievement standards
that specify the depth of what students are expected to learn at each year level was consistently
raised.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 20
In addition to this summary of strengths and areas for further development across the four learning
areas, a comprehensive review of the consolidated feedback is provided in the full report.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 21
1. Introduction
The development of an Australian curriculum from Kindergarten to Year 12 has commenced, seeking
to outline the essential skills, knowledge and capabilities that all young Australians are entitled to.
ACARA is responsible for the development of this rigorous, world-class national curriculum with the
initial focus on the learning areas of English, mathematics, science and history (phase 1), followed by
work in the areas of languages, geography and the arts (phase 2).
At present, a draft national curriculum for Kindergarten to Year 10 in English, mathematics, science
and history has been written. This writing stage has culminated in a nationwide public consultation of
the draft materials. In seeking feedback on the draft national curriculum, the following key questions
have been raised:
Do the draft content descriptions and achievement standards represent what all young Australians
should learn in these four curriculum areas?
Are the content descriptions and achievement standards clear about what should be taught and
what students are expected to learn?
How does the sequence and placement of content within the curriculum match with teachers‘
understandings of where students should be at any particular year?
Is the content at each year level manageable and able to be taught in depth and within the time
available?
Is the digital layout easy to navigate? Does it provide a range of entry points and views?
Feedback on these issues has been gathered from a range of stakeholders via numerous
consultation processes. The following report is intended to detail the consolidated feedback on the
draft national curriculum materials. This analysis of all formal submissions and survey and forum
feedback is provided to inform decisions on potential amendments or refinements to the draft
Australian Curriculum as it is developed into a final Australian Curriculum.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 22
2. Methodology
Consultation Processes and Data Collection Overview
Consultation on the draft K-10 English, mathematics, science, and history curriculum was made
available to stakeholders between March and May 2010. Following the release of the draft national
curriculum (K-10) for public consultation, feedback has been collected via a range of processes. A
brief summary of the process undertaken by ACARA and Insync Surveys is set out below.
1 March – 30 May 2010
Online survey and feedback
Draft curriculum made available online for review. Completion of
an online survey and submission of feedback via online mark-up
of the draft materials
March – April 2010 State and Territory consultation forums
15 April – 23 April 2010 National learning area forums
Mathematics; science; history; English
March – June 2010 Peak Body and public written submissions gathered
March – June 2010
School trial feedback – online pilot survey
Nominated schools participated in the development of
teaching/learning programs from the draft curriculum (K-10)
This section details the processes used to collect feedback as well as the qualitative and quantitative
methods used to analyse this data.
Online Survey
From 1st March to 30th May 2010, teachers, other stakeholders in the broader education community,
and the general public were able to review the draft curriculum materials online and provide targeted
feedback through an online survey. Responses were sought to specific questions in eight broad
categories:
1. Content descriptions
2. Content elaborations
3. Achievement standards
4. Structure of the curriculum
5. General capabilities
6. Cross-curriculum dimensions
7. Digital layout
8. World-class curriculum
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 23
Within each of these categories there were open-ended questions, which allowed written comments
to be provided; and rating-scale questions, which required respondents to indicate on a 4-point Likert
scale the extent to which they agree with a particular statement (i.e. Strongly disagree, disagree,
agree, and strongly agree). A ―no comment‖ rating allowed participants to not respond if they had not
considered that part of the curriculum or did not wish to share their views.
The number of questions in each section of the survey is detailed below. For a sample of the online
survey, please refer to Appendix A.
Survey section Quantitative items Qualitative items
1. Content descriptions 5 rating-scale questions 3 open-ended questions
2. Content elaborations 4 rating-scale questions 1 open-ended question
3. Achievement standards 5 rating-scale questions 2 open-ended questions
4. Structure of the curriculum 3 rating-scale questions 3 open-ended questions
5. General capabilities 10 rating-scale questions 1 open-ended question
6. Cross-curriculum
dimensions 3 rating-scale questions 1 open-ended question
7. Digital layout 2 rating-scale questions 1 open-ended questions
8. World-class curriculum 8 rating-scale questions 1 open-ended question
In total, the online survey comprises 53 questions: 40 rating-scale questions and 13 open-ended
questions.
Insync Surveys‘ internal data analysis team undertook data processing and analysis using SPSS
software. Analysis of the online survey data was undertaken at the item level with straight responses
calculated for each rating-scale survey question. A statistically representative subset2 of comments
was randomly extracted for analysis. Each comment was manually coded using pre-defined themes
(see Appendix B for the code book), and subsequently content analysed for recurring themes and
general trends.
Specifically, this processes of thematic analysis involved the identification and coding of ―meaning
units‖ in the commentary received via the online survey. A ―meaning unit‖ is a string of text that
expresses a single proposition, idea or theme. Recurring themes were then grouped together and
aligned with a code, or overarching theme. These themes identify the general meaning of that group
of comments.
2 A confidence level of 99% (+/- 3%) was selected across all sampling conducted
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 24
Consultation Portal Data
During the review period from 1st March to 30th May 2010 during which, teachers and other
stakeholders in the broader education community were able to review the curriculum, the online
portal also allowed respondents to annotate the materials and provide open-ended feedback.
Prior to analysis, the consultation portal data were cleaned. For example, all irrelevant and repeat
cases were cleared. A statistically representative subset of comments was randomly extracted from
each of the four learning areas. This sample of open-ended feedback was then content analysed
manually with general themes identified and specific recommendations noted.
State/Territory Consultation Forums
Consultation forums took place in every state and territory during March and April 2010. These
forums were conducted in partnership with State and Territory curriculum and school authorities with
participants including teachers, school leaders, students, professional associations, universities,
teacher unions, parents, industry groups, and education authority officers.
Following general discussion of the draft national curriculum, forum participants collaborated in
smaller groups of between four to six participants, and were asked to provide a group-level response
via either one of two forms:
Learning area form
Stage of schooling form
The learning area form (Appendix C) comprised 18 questions in total. Groups were asked to complete
the form based on either a learning area in general (e.g. English, mathematics, science or history) or a
learning area in a particular year (e.g. K-2 English, 3-6 history). The learning area form sought a group
response to specific questions across five broad survey categories:
1. Rationale, aims and organisation of the learning area
2. Key strengths and issues relating to the content of this learning area
3. Key strengths and issues relating to the achievement standards of this learning area
4. Online format
5. Open-ended questions – overall strengths and challenges
The stages of schooling form (Appendix D) comprised 13 rating-scale and open-ended questions that
focused on the key strengths and issues relating to English, maths, science and history for each
group‘s nominated schooling stage (i.e. either K-2, 3-6, 7-10).
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 25
Insync Surveys‘ internal data analysis team undertook data processing and analysis using SPSS
software. Analysis of the quantitative forum feedback was undertaken at the item level with straight
responses calculated for each rating-scale survey question. All qualitative forum feedback (i.e. State,
Territory, and national learning area) was analysed manually using content analytic techniques. This
involved the identification and summarising of themes similar to the process undertaken to analyse
the consultation portal data.
National Learning Area Forums
Following the State and Territory forums, four national learning forums were convened by ACARA on
the following dates:
National Consultation Forum – Mathematics 15 April 2010
National Consultation Forum – Science 16 April 2010
National Consultation Forum – History 22 April 2010
National Consultation Forum – English 23 April 2010
The purpose of these national forums was to examine the analysis of key issues from the
State/Territory consultation forum and provide advice on proposed improvements to the curriculum.
Teachers, national professional associations, and education and discipline academics were invited to
provide expert feedback on the draft national K-10 curriculum. These forums were divided into three
workshop sessions to focus on particular issues arising from the draft curriculum:
Workshop 1 – Content
Workshop 2 – General capabilities and cross curriculum dimensions
Workshop 3 – Achievement standards
All feedback was recorded in forms specific to learning areas (Appendices E-H). All qualitative national
forum feedback was analysed manually using content analytic techniques with key themes extracted
and specific suggestions for improvements to the curriculum noted.
Peak Body and Public Feedback Submissions
Formal written submissions were sought in response to the draft national curriculum materials (K-10)
in the areas of English, mathematics, science, and history. A summary of Peak Body written
submissions and other written submissions is presented in Appendix I.
Peak Body and public submissions were analysed manually using thematic analysis techniques. All
Peak Body submissions were manually coded using pre-defined themes (see Appendix B for the code
book) and then content analysed for recurring themes in each submission and general trends. Written
submissions from the public were summarised via recursive abstraction, a method of qualitative
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 26
analysis that does not include coding. Through undertaking this method, each of the original
submissions were summarised, and then through a further review of those summaries, the main
argument and themes of the initial dataset are distilled.
School Trial Feedback – Online Pilot Survey
Teachers from each State and Territory were invited to trial the draft curriculum materials and provide
feedback on the Australian Curriculum Consultation Portal. Teachers were requested to complete a
questionnaire of 15 open-ended questions (Appendix J). These questions focused on reactions to the
website (i.e. the home page, LEARN link, EXPLORE link, and general feedback). Each open-ended
question was manually content analysed for recurring themes and general trends. A list of the trial
schools that submitted feedback is presented in Appendix K.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 27
3. Nature of Respondents
Total Number of Respondents
Table 1 shows participation rates across each of the consultation processes.
Table 1: The total sample composition by consultation process
Number of participants/forms
Online survey 3650 completed survey responses
Consultation portal data
58,357 responses received
26,039 responses remained following the removal
of irrelevant and repeat cases
State/Territory consultation forums 935 participants
261 feedback forms
136 learning area forms
125 stage of schooling forms
National learning area forums 325 registered participants
41 feedback forms
Written submissions
Within the designated timeframe:
209 written submissions from 186 peak
bodies were received
485 written submissions from individuals in
the community (―public submissions‖) were
also received
School trial feedback: online pilot survey 87 participating trial schools
381 feedback forms
Written submissions were received from government, education authorities (national, State and
Territory, government, Catholic and Independent), parent bodies, professional educational
associations, academics, business and industry groups, wider community groups, and individuals
from the wider community.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 28
Online Survey Respondents
In total, 3650 responses to the online survey were received. Table 2 shows the composition of the
online survey sample, that is, the number and percentage within the total sample of respondents in
the various demographic categories
Table 2: The online survey sample composition
Number in the online survey
sample
% of the total online survey
sample
Learning Area:
English 821 22.5%
Mathematics 793 21.7%
Science 555 15.2%
History 582 15.9%
All learning areas* 899 24.6%
State:
ACT 130 3.6%
NSW 1105 30.3%
NT 68 1.9%
QLD 587 16.1%
SA 314 8.6%
TAS 178 4.9%
VIC 785 21.5%
WA 479 13.1%
Other (international) 4 0.1%
Role:
Academic 329 9.0%
Business or industry professional 90 2.5%
Community member 118 3.2%
Parent 180 4.9%
School or curriculum authority 241 6.6%
School-based personnel (e.g. principal,
teacher, coordinator) 2692 73.8%
Stage of Schooling:
K-2 103 2.8%
3-6 114 3.1%
7-10 959 26.3%
All stages# 2474 67.8%
* Respondents who selected more than one learning area were considered in this classification
# Respondents who selected multiple stages of schooling across the specified groupings were considered in this classification
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 29
State/Territory Consultation Forum Respondents
In total, 935 individuals participated in the State and Territory consultation forums. Participants were
selected by State/Territory authorities from the following groups: teachers, school leaders, students,
professional associations, universities, teacher unions, parents, and industry. Table 3 shows the
number of participants by state.
Table 3: The State/Territory consultation forum sample composition
State/Territory
ACT 126
NSW 119
NT 146
QLD 121
SA 94
TAS 98
VIC 119
WA 112
TOTAL 935
Following the State and Territory consultation forums, 136 learning area forms were completed.
Table 4 shows the number of learning area feedback forms received by location and learning area.
Table 4: The number of learning area forms submitted by State/Territory
State/Territory
Learning area
English Mathematics Science History
ACT 3 0 3 4
NSW 8 4 4 4
NT 4 5 3 5
QLD 5 3 4 3
SA 6 5 4 5
TAS 4 5 5 4
VIC 4 4 4 4
WA 6 5 4 5
TOTAL 40 31 31 34
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 30
In addition to the learning area forms, 125 stage of schooling forms were completed. Table 5 shows
the number of stage of schooling feedback forms received by location and stage of schooling.
Table 5: The number of stage of schooling forms submitted by State/Territory
State/Territory
Stage of schooling
K-2 3-6 7-10
ACT 0 3 5
NSW 3 5 8
NT 6 5 5
QLD 5 4 6
SA 3 6 7
TAS 5 6 9
VIC 4 3 8
WA 5 6 8
TOTAL 31 38 56
National Learning Area Forum Participants
In total, 325 individuals participated in the national learning area consultation forums. Table 6 shows
the number of participants across the four learning area forums.
Table 6: The national consultation forum sample composition
Date Number of registered participants
English 23 April 2010 77
Mathematics 15 April 2010 79
Science 16 April 2010 83
History 22 April 2010 86
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 31
Nature of Peak Body and Public Feedback Submissions
In total, 209 written submissions were received from 186 peak bodies covering educational
authorities, schools, universities, business or professional associations, community organisations,
and government organisations. The number of submissions by group is tabled below with a list of
these peak bodies presented in Appendix I.
Number of submissions % of submissions
Education authorities state 17 9%
Schools 50 27%
Universities 5 3%
Business or professional associations 86 46%
Community organisations 15 8%
Government organisations 5 3%
Other authorities 8 4%
In addition, 485 submissions were received from individuals of the public population.
School Trial Feedback – Online Pilot Survey participants
In total, 87 schools participated in the online pilot of the draft national curriculum materials. The
breakdown by State/Territory is shown below. The list of participating schools is presented in
Appendix K.
Table 7: The online pilot - school trials sample composition
State/Territory
ACT 5
NSW 11
NT 5
QLD 13
SA 14
TAS 11
VIC 18
WA 10
TOTAL 87
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 32
4. Summary of Key Strengths
Key Strengths: Across the Curriculum
This review of all of the feedback received via the multiple consultation processes has identified a
number of key strengths of the draft national curriculum (K-10). These strengths were identified
based on their repeated mention across more than two consultation media. In general, stakeholders
have indicated that:
There is clarity around the foundation and direction of the curriculum, supported by the
rationale and aims that frame each learning area
The Australian Curriculum consultation website is easy to navigate and all parts of the
curriculum can be easily accessed depending on one‘s access to the internet
General capabilities (literacy; numeracy; ICT) and cross-curriculum dimensions (Indigenous
history and culture; Asia and Australia‘s engagement with Asia; sustainability) are clearly
evident in the draft curriculum
Key Strengths by Learning Area
English
The language, literacy, and literature strands were generally well received, particularly the
equal importance and time allocation placed on each.
The content descriptions were described as covering the important material young
Australians need to know, and the clarity and coherence of the draft content descriptions,
elaborations, and work samples were all evaluated favourably.
The English achievement standards were generally considered to be clear and sequenced
appropriately. The modes in relation to the achievement standards were also commended.
Mathematics
The clarity, coherence, and coverage of the draft content descriptions and elaborations were
all evaluated favourably.
The enhanced linkages between strands and the greater clarity now afforded to these
connections were commended.
The inclusion of real world applications of mathematics, such as calculating discounts, buying
and selling, and tax and GST were considered strengths. Overall, a stronger emphasis on
financial literacy was recommended to instil sound everyday money skills in students.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 33
Science
In general, positive feedback was received on the importance the curriculum places on
developing scientific inquiry skills and the application of these skills in everyday life.
The inclusion of Science as a Human Endeavour (―SHE‖) in the curriculum was commended.
Feedback indicated that it is a vital aspect of scientific learning and should engage more
students by connecting science and culture.
The general capabilities were well integrated into the draft science curriculum with a number
of capabilities rated highly, specifically: teamwork, ICT, literacy, numeracy and thinking skills.
History
Elevating the significance of history education by ensuring its presence over the stages of
schooling was regarded by many as a positive and a key pillar in the national curriculum.
The broad inquiry questions for each level were considered clear and succinct and a vital aid
to helping teachers unpack the content and skills identified for each year level.
Compared to all other learning areas, the history curriculum most clearly promoted
intercultural understanding. Indigenous history and culture, and Asia and Australia‘s
engagement with Asia were most recognised under this subject.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 34
5. Consultation Findings – Across the Curriculum
Summary of Findings
In considering the consolidated stakeholder feedback regarding the overall national curriculum (K-
10), the data reflect support for a nationwide curriculum in principle. In particular, the following key
strengths were consistent across all consultation media and across all curriculum areas:
Clarity around the foundation and direction of the curriculum
Across the curriculum, the rationale and aims were described as understandable and
providing clear direction.
User friendly online curriculum
In general, favourable feedback was received for the online format of the Australian
Curriculum website, and it was regarded as user friendly. The filtering function was seen as
particularly useful.
General capabilities and cross-curriculum dimensions clearly evident
The inclusion of general capabilities and cross-curriculum dimensions was supported.
Literacy, numeracy, and Information and Communication Technologies (―ICT‖) were seen as
universal across the curriculum. Indigenous history and culture, and Asia and Australia‘s
engagement with Asia were also clearly evident.
A number of key challenges and issues were identified across the K-10 draft national curriculum.
Taking into account all of the feedback received, these issues relate to:
Catering for students with diverse and special needs
Concerns were expressed across all consultation media that the curriculum does not take
into account all students, nor allows teachers the flexibility required in teaching students with
diverse learning abilities, from diverse backgrounds, and from regional areas.
Content overcrowding
Consistent feedback highlighted that the curriculum was too content heavy and that this may
detract from the depth and quality of understanding achievable. This was particularly evident
in the science and history draft K-10 curricula.
Clearer achievement standards with stronger links to assessment
The need for achievement standards that clearly specify the depth of what students are
expected to learn at each year level was raised via multiple feedback channels. The purpose
of achievement standards needs to be clearly articulated with stronger links to assessment
and reporting.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 35
Increased number and range of work samples
A broader range of annotated work samples was requested in order to exemplify the
standards (A-E). Multi-modal (i.e. written, video, aural, etc.) samples would be more
beneficial, particularly if accompanied by rubrics representing a greater range of assessment
tasks.
Stronger focus on transition points
In considering feedback across the stages of schooling, there were calls to review the leaps
in content and specialisation between early childhood learning, primary, and secondary
schooling (particularly between years 6 and 7). Ensuring a smooth transition was a particular
concern with students with diverse learning abilities.
Revision of curriculum nomenclature
There was general feedback across the curriculum that improved clarity and consistency is
required with regards to language use, terminology, and descriptions. This would assist in
providing clearer guidance for teachers in terms of sequencing and working with students
with diverse abilities.
Online Survey Findings
In total, 899 individuals provided feedback on the draft Australian Curriculum across all learning
areas via the online survey.
Respondents to the online survey indicated a number of strengths of the draft national curriculum
overall, including content descriptions and achievement standards that clearly articulate what is to be
taught across strands and year levels, and elaborations that effectively and sufficiently illustrate the
content descriptions. For each of these issues, more than 75% of respondents provided positive
feedback.
Specifically, the survey statements with the highest levels of agreement focused on the draft
structure:
1. The rationale and aims of the learning area(s) provide a clear foundation and direction for the
curriculum
2. The organisation of the learning area(s) provides a coherent view of the key elements and
features of the curriculum
Figures 1 and 2 show the proportion of agreement responses for the two statements above.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 36
16%
65%
10%
9%16%
61%
15%
8%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Figure 1: Proportion of ―all learning areas‖ responses
to: ―The rationale and aims of the learning area(s)
provide a clear foundation and direction for the
curriculum‖
Figure 2: Proportion of ―all learning areas‖
responses to: ―The organisation of the learning
area(s) provides a coherent view of the key
elements and features of the curriculum‖
“It gives a great overall view of what we want learners to achieve at the end of school, what
kind of literate people we want them to be.”
School-based personnel, New South Wales
“The aims are clear and provide a coherent picture of which direction we wish the students to
travel.”
School-based personnel, Queensland
On the other hand, there was less agreement across respondents regarding the extent to which the
draft content descriptions and achievement standards across all learning areas were sufficiently
challenging for students at each year level:
62% of respondents felt that the draft content descriptions are pitched appropriately
60% of respondents felt that the draft achievement standards are pitched appropriately
Open-ended feedback from the online survey elaborated on the conflicting views related to the pitch
of the content and achievement standards:
“The standards are certainly sufficiently challenging – they are pitched at the more capable
students. Many students, however, would struggle and some will clearly 'fail' to achieve these
standards despite receiving extra support. The achievement standards at the K-1 level, and
again in years 6-7, may be unrealistic, while the middle primary targets seem appropriate.”
School-based personnel, Western Australia
“The achievement standards appear to be lower than expected – requiring less of students,
simplified to remove much of the language of higher-order thinking. Gifted students will have
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 37
greater chance of underachievement – expectations in any grade tend to minimum
achievement levels. There will be a tendency to only measure students against lower
standards and pitch learning at a lower level.”
Academic, New South Wales
Two-thirds of respondents (67%) disagreed that the annotated work samples assist to illustrate
and exemplify the achievement standards. Specific commentary around the work samples
indicated they would be more useful if annotations were more detailed, and exemplars of content
at different levels of achievement were provided. According to respondents, the work samples also
need to relate specifically to content and illustrate multi-modal forms of assessment.
“I think there needs to be annotated examples for each year group in relation to the A to E
grading system to make it used as effectively as possible.”
School-based personnel, New South Wales
“Have work samples for all year levels and for the A level of achievement so that it is clear
what would be a satisfactory work example as well an exemplary example. Showing the work
samples in different formats (i.e. not just print based) would also be beneficial.”
School-based personnel, Queensland
In combination, 65% of respondents agreed that the content descriptions together with the
achievement standards provide clarity about the depth of teaching and learning required.
Respondents suggested that compulsory content, along with the depth of teaching required, needs be
explicitly stated. A preference for simplified wording and a dot-point format also emerged.
Open-ended feedback from the online survey illustrated these concerns:
“The content descriptions together with achievement standards are not sufficiently detailed
or consistent to assist in identifying the depth and breadth of what teachers are meant to
teach and students are meant to learn, especially in relation to notions of: culture,
intercultural understanding, language and literacy demands, needs of EAL learners.”
School-based personnel, New South Wales
“There is no information about how intense a concept should be studied. It may be treated on
the surface by some teachers and in depth by others. There is no measure to show how in
depth some concepts should be taught, especially in history, science and grammar.”
School-based personnel, New South Wales
With regards to general capabilities, the draft national curriculum across all learning areas was highly
rated against a number of capabilities, in particular: literacy, numeracy, and ICT. The proportion of
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 38
respondents who indicated that each general capability is clearly evident in the content descriptions
and achievement standards across the curriculum is presented in Figure 3 below.
59%
60%
60%
61%
65%
68%
69%
76%
82%
85%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Social Competence
Self-management
Ethical Behaviour
Creativity
Teamwork
Thinking skills
Intercultural U/S
ICT
Numeracy
Literacy
% agreement
Figure 3: Proportion of respondents indicating clear evidence of the general capabilities across the draft national
curriculum
With regards to cross-curriculum dimensions, the majority of respondents felt that indigenous history
and culture, and Asia and Australia‘s engagement with Asia were clearly evident in the content
descriptions across the curriculum, with 78% and 75% of respondents, respectively, indicating such.
Sixty-nine percent (69%) of respondents felt that a commitment to sustainability is adequately
covered. Respondents noted an overemphasis on Australia‘s engagement with Asia, and indigenous
perspectives at the expense of other cultures and influences. According to some respondents,
coverage of these areas seemed contrived at times.
Open-ended feedback from the online survey elaborated on the cross-curriculum dimensions:
“I am concerned that these three 'threads' ignore the very 'Western' and 'European'
influences that have contributed greatly to the Australian identity. I would hate to see
Australia lose this – we have a great multi-cultural melting pot here, and a wonderful
'have-a-go' attitude, because so many have come from so far with so little. The cross-
curriculum dimension could be seen as politically shaping our children's views by not
acknowledging the 'West' and 'Europe'.”
Parent, Northern Territory
“Indigenous history and culture is far too prevalent in the content and needs to be
reduced so as to allow all cultures to be heard. Sustainability was almost non-existent in
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 39
the content and needs to be incorporated more throughout the curriculum.”
Academic, Queensland
“I appreciate our links and history with Asia but would have liked to have seen a stronger
alignment with a global curriculum dimension.”
School-based personnel, Queensland
In terms of the online format, 75% of online survey respondents agreed that the Australian
Curriculum consultation website is easy to navigate. Moreover, 73% thought that all parts of the
Australian Curriculum can be easily accessed on the website.
Online survey statements with relatively low levels of agreement mainly concerned the draft
Australian Curriculum catering for diverse student requirements, content overcrowding, and the
overall curriculum being at a world-class standard. The specific statements that indicate this are
detailed in Table 8 below.
Table 8: Low agreement survey statements – respondents across the curriculum
Survey statement
% response
Strongly
disagree Disagree Agree
Strongly
agree
The draft K-10 Australian Curriculum takes
into account the needs of all students 28% 37% 29% 6%
The draft K-10 Australian Curriculum
enables teachers to cater for developmental
diversity
24% 31% 37% 8%
The draft K-10 Australian Curriculum takes
into account available evidence about the
nature of the learner 20% 32% 41% 7%
The draft K-10 Australian Curriculum is not
overcrowded 25% 20% 39% 16%
The draft K-10 Australian Curriculum reflects
a world-class curriculum 21% 26% 42% 11%
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 40
Open-ended feedback highlighted that respondents were concerned that the Australian Curriculum
does not take into account students with learning difficulties, or gifted students. Additionally,
respondents noted that the Australian Curriculum could be more child-focused and would benefit
from a reduction in content.
“Our biggest concern is the lack of acknowledgment or direction to teachers around
shaping the curriculum for students with a disability. While many students with a disability
will be able to access and engage in the learning activities of their same-aged peers, there
are students with intellectual impairments and some autistic spectrum disorders that
require a modified curriculum and alternative program (e.g. students attending a special
school).”
School-based personnel, Queensland
“It would seem that those writing the National Curriculum have forgotten that it is aimed at
young people. Delivering such a heavily content-based curriculum to students will not be
easy, particularly as so much of it does not relate to the real world that they live in.”
School-based personnel, Victoria
“Any world-class curriculum would put the child at the centre, whereas this curriculum puts
the curriculum first. Any curriculum would respect developmental stages and not box a
curriculum into year levels. There needs to be more emphasis on thinking skills. The
documents lack blurbs about children, e.g. little people being curious, wanting to explore
and discover – it is a very ‟clinical‟ document.”
School-based personnel, South Australia
Consultation forum findings
In total, 136 feedback forms were received in State and Territory consultation forums across the four
learning areas. This section details the key themes that were consistently identified across the State,
Territory, and national forums and reports the aggregate findings from all forum feedback forms.
The key findings from the State and Territory forums highlight strengths around the clarity of the
rationale and aims of the national curriculum with more than 88% of forum groups indicating that the
aims are clear and appropriate. This finding was consistent with favourable evaluations in the online
survey of a clear foundation and direction for the K-10 curriculum.
A significant strength was the recognition and establishment of a national curriculum document
across the four learning areas. Overall, there was strong support from national forum participants for
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 41
a national curriculum, in principle. Participants appreciated efforts to align English, mathematics,
science, and particularly, history content across States and Territories.
The primary issues identified by forum participants related to the manageability, placement and
sequencing of content across the curriculum. Sixty-two percent (62%) of State/Territory forum
participants felt that English, mathematics, science, and history content represent the important
material that all young Australians should learn. The questions with the highest level of disagreement
centred on these issues and are displayed below.
5%
35%
36%
12%
12%3%
27%
29%
29%
12%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
No Comment
Figure 4: Overall proportion of forum responses to:
―The content at each year level is manageable and
able to be taught in depth and within the time
available‖
Figure 5: Overall proportion of forum responses
to: ―The placement and sequencing of content is
appropriate at and across all year levels‖
As shown in the pie chart above left, 58% of State/Territory forum participants expressed concern
that the content at each year level could be taught in depth and within the time available. National
forum participants also provided strong feedback around this issue, citing that the required depth
of teaching was unclear across the learning areas. The inclusion of guidelines for time allocation
was regarded as necessary. Content overcrowding was a consistent theme across consultation
forums and the consolidation, or exclusion, of content was recommended within individual
learning areas. These findings are detailed in Section 6 of this report.
“There is no evidence, whatsoever, of course differentiation. You imply that ALL of this
content is to be covered by ALL students. The content is just overwhelming, and at times
tokenistic/politically correct.”
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 42
Across the State and Territory forum groups, achievement standards across the curriculum were
rated poorly and, generally, seen as not reflecting the content. This finding is in contrast to
feedback received through the online survey where there was a stronger sense of clarity around
the draft standards. The specific statements that indicate this are detailed in Table 9 below.
Table 9: Achievement standards statements –forum participants‟ views across the curriculum
Survey statement
% forum group responses
Strongly
disagree Disagree Agree
Strongly
agree
No
comment
The achievement standards clearly
describe the expected quality of learning
for each year level 12% 32% 33% 12% 11%
The achievement standards at each year
level represents the learning you would
expect, having taught the content for that
year
6% 24% 49% 8% 13%
You could confidently assess student
achievement of these standards 26% 28% 24% 11% 11%
National forum participants indicated that across the curriculum, the achievement standards were
generally above a ―C‖ level. Further clarity, detail, and definition of the achievement standards
were strongly suggested. National forum participants expressed that a nationally consistent
curriculum requires the full scale of achievement (A-E) to be defined. In addition, the provision of
national assessment tasks, work samples, and rubrics were considered essential so that A to E
grades can be distinguished. In sum, it was suggested that achievement standards be more
consistently mapped to content descriptions so that they accurately represent mandatory content
and describe the characteristics of students‘ work.
“The [achievement] statements are not clear and unambiguous because there is no
indication of the breadth and depth of information, nor of the time involved in acquiring this
knowledge.”
In terms of the online format, 57% of forum groups that provided a rating described it as user-
friendly and easy to navigate. Slightly less than half (49%) thought that all parts of the Australian
Curriculum can be easily accessed on the website. Commentary received through the forums
highlighted difficulties in accessing the online curriculum in regional areas, and smaller schools
where online resources are limited. These results are in contrast to the online survey findings
where there was general satisfaction with the digital layout of the Australian Curriculum
consultation website.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 43
Across all learning areas, consultation forum participants expressed that the primary challenge in
the national curriculum is catering for students with diverse and special needs. The draft
curriculum was perceived as not adequately incorporating this population of students, specifically,
gifted student, ESL students, those with learning disabilities, and those from low-socio-economic
backgrounds. National forum participants indicated that gifted students are not able to acquire
further depth, while students with learning difficulties will require more time than the sequencing
allows for. It was strongly suggested that the national curriculum incorporate a graduated level of
achievement for students at different levels and with different abilities.
“The difficulty is that this curriculum assumes that everyone starts on the same page.
Modern classrooms have such diversity of levels in it that this can't be measured by one
standard. How am I to teach decimals Gr 8 if I have students who have not done Gr 4
fractions? And they are still going to be measured the same, so the poor will feel more and
more like failures.”
“[The draft national curriculum] does not cater for students with a moderate or severe
intellectual disability. Many of our students would finish school without being able to
achieve any of these content descriptions.”
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 44
Feedback from Peak Body submissions
There were 189 formal Peak Body written submissions. The feedback in these submissions
broadly aligns with feedback received through the other forms of consultation. The analysed data
from the Peak Body written submissions are summarised in the table below, identifying key
themes organised according to the perceived strengths and limitations of the national curriculum
as a whole. The issues identified in the table were cited across State education authorities,
schools and business, and professional associations. Feedback from these submissions that
relates specifically to the English, mathematics, science or history learning areas are detailed in
Section 6 of this report. Detailed summaries across each of the key State and Territory education
authorities can be found in Section 8.
STRENGTHS
Item Feedback summary Typical quotes
National
document
Assertion that a
national curriculum, in
principle, is a positive
step forward for
Australia.
―In Tasmania, the concept of a national
curriculum is mostly welcomed by a cohort of
English teachers fatigued by seemingly constant
curriculum change.‖
―At the outset ACL wishes to express support for
the idea of a national curriculum, especially as
the population of Australia become more mobile.‖
―Writing a national curriculum is a historic step
forward‖
Online format
The digital format was
generally well-received
and described as easy
to navigate.
―We are highly supportive of the online format of
the curriculum.‖
―We like the unifying ideals of a national
curriculum on education and the plans for its
online accessibility.‖
Filtering is seen a
useful addition.
―We found the online filters excellent, enabling
teachers to indentify skills and specific content
across curriculum areas.‖
―The capacity to apply filtering is also valuable
and will improve as it becomes more fine-tuned
for the learning area.‖
Educational
goals for young
Australians
The rationale and aims
across the learning
areas were described
as understandable and
providing clear
direction.
―The aspirations surrounding the development of
a national curriculum with clearly defined scope
and standards to be implemented across the
country.‖
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 45
STRENGTHS continued
Item Feedback summary Typical quotes
Curriculum
content:
general
Local needs and
contexts and 21st
century learning are
addressed
―The school developed options in Years 7-9
provide some scope for local history.‖
―The elaborations are not compulsory and hence,
allow teachers and schools flexibility to address
local and topical issues.‖
LIMITATIONS
Item Feedback summary Typical quotes
Implementation
Teacher training and
professional
development, resource
availability, resourcing
implications for
students requiring
additional support.
These issues were most
frequently cited across
all submissions
―A significant revision of teacher training
programs will be required to ensure that all
graduate teachers acquire the scientific literacy
demanded by the new curriculum.‖
―A high level of teacher professional learning will
be needed for implementation, especially in the
area of teaching grammar.‖
―Significant implications in this respect. On top of
the need to alter resources such as textbooks,
etc. in line with new curriculum, there are also
implications if there were increased hours
teaching in rooms within schools, in particular in
specialist areas such as science that make use of
specialist classrooms and resources.‖
Principles to
underpin the
curriculum
Does not cater to all
students, nor allow for
the flexibility required in
teaching students with
diverse learning
abilities, from diverse
backgrounds and from
regional areas.
―[There should be] Opportunities for all students
with disabilities to participate in the
same/modified academic and social learning
experiences as their peers.‖
Curriculum
content:
sequencing
Across the learning
areas, content
descriptions and
standards are not
pitched appropriately.
―The main concern identified is that operations
do not sequence well across years. We
recommend strongly that years are placed side by
side and compared to allow effective
sequencing.‖
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 46
LIMITATIONS continued
Curriculum
content:
manageability
Content overcrowding
and issues with
teaching the required
content in depth and
within timeframes
―The perception is that students and teachers
have been ‗overloaded‘ with content.‖
―If you take the total number of hours available
for a school in Years 7 to 10, it currently looks
like there are possibly too many hours allocated
to the courses in Phase 1.‖
Curriculum
content:
achievement
standards
Lacking in clarity and
specificity. Range of
examples from A-E
required.
Work samples are
insufficient – broader
range recommended.
―We believe it will be critical to provide
comprehensive examples to support consistent
moderation in assessment.‖
―The link between assessment and achievement
standards needs to be clarified. There is also a
need for a framework around the achievement
standards.‖
―Work samples were seen as being useful, but
those provided are limited and more are needed
to exemplify the sections of the curriculum
document which require the most clarification.‖
Curriculum
content:
general
Structured curriculum
perceived to be too
prescriptive
―The teachers enquired if the document was a
little too prescriptive and did it still allow scope
for integration.‖
Implementation
Issues with year-by-year
approach and
composite classes. No
flexibility in draft
curriculum to cater for
this.
―By design we use multi-aged groups for a very
large part of the curriculum, both in our primary
and secondary sections.‖
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 47
Feedback from public submissions
The majority of submissions received from the public, or individuals, referred to the draft Australian
Curriculum as a whole. In the main, favourable feedback centred on the online format and layout of
the Australian Curriculum website. Respondents described the document as user-friendly, with all
parts of the curriculum accessible. In addition, the concept of a national curriculum was largely
supported, as were the rationale and aims of the curriculum.
“I believe its common sense and logical to have one curriculum for every Australian.”
“It has been the view of many teachers that this should have been in place long ago. Thank
goodness it is now on its way. I look forward to using it as a new teacher.”
Considering the public submissions received, five general trends were identified across the
curriculum:
1. Catering for the diverse needs of all students. The diversity of students and learning needs
were seen as not adequately addressed in the draft national curriculum. There should be
levels within year levels to allow for diversity, and different approaches for ESL, gifted, and
special needs students. Students in the same year level can be working at a range of
different academic levels, but because the curriculum is structured by year level this is
problematic. Furthermore, digital mediums need to be inclusive of hearing, vision or sensory
impaired students.
“Please, please find some way to cater for the range of students we teach.”
2. Content overcrowding. Taken as a whole, the curriculum was deemed to be too content
heavy. Consistent feedback highlighted that there is too much content to be covered in depth,
particularly in high school years. This will lead to a lack of understanding and enjoyment in
learning. Guidelines also need to be provided as to how much time should be allocated to
subjects and learning areas.
3. Clear achievement standards. General feedback from the public suggested that more
focused guidance is required to enable teachers to assess students using the curriculum.
Achievement standards that clearly specify what students are expected to learn across each
year level were described as very important, otherwise, there would be a risk of state-by-state
interpretations. This would defeat the purpose of a national curriculum.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 48
“The ‟one size fits all‟ means there is far too much content for a very large proportion of
students. If we had a range of achievement statements for each year group this would
alleviate this. Teachers could then decide what content and depth is appropriate to allow
each group of students to achieve to their ability levels.”
4. Resourcing. Concerns were raised about resourcing for schools to implement the new
curriculum. It was foreseen that funding for new textbooks and multimedia resources would
be necessary, as well as gaining access to specialist teachers. Schools lacking in
technological resources were identified as disadvantaged under the proposed national
curriculum, and as a consequence, would not be able to cover the entire curriculum.
5. The curriculum in composite classes. The structure of the curriculum is seen as posing
difficulties for multi-age classes (particularly in science and history) as there is very little
overlap in content. Implementing the curriculum in composite classes is predicted to become
highly problematic. This structure is also regarded as challenging for special-needs students,
as there is no indication of whether students who do not meet the achievement standards for
one year level may progress to the next. Implementation for schools that have Year 7 in
primary was also highlighted as a significant issue.
“The new curriculum makes it more difficult for teachers in small schools to cater for
children who are spread over the age range.”
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 49
Consultation Portal Data Findings
In addition to feedback via the online survey, feedback was gathered via online mark-up of the draft
national curriculum materials. The comments received were generally consistent with the online
survey findings, and as a consequence, are briefly summarised in this section. More detailed
commentary and recommendations were provided via the consultation portal specific to the four
learning areas. These findings are presented in Section 6 of this report.
In noting the key themes across the curriculum, recurring issues identified as strengths included:
The curriculum reflects an appropriate vision for Australia and is underpinned by a strong and
optimistic sense of national identity.
The digital/web-based format of the curriculum is accessible and easy to use. The filtering
function allows teachers to explore relationships within the curriculum effectively.
Students are given the opportunity to learn complex material, which may be effectively
absorbed depending on how it is presented and taught.
The draft curriculum is thorough and succinct.
The elaborations are clear and helpful and contain effective specific examples.
Recurring issues identified as limitations across the curriculum are summarised in the table overleaf.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 50
LIMITATIONS
Issue Feedback summary
Implementation
No provision for composite classes.
Professional learning required for teachers across all learning areas.
Lack of information regarding timetabling to accommodate increased
amount of content to be covered.
Lack of information regarding the allocation of resources to schools.
Curriculum
content
Overall, the curriculum is too content focused.
The content is too prescriptive and offers no flexibility.
The content is unmanageable in the time allocated to each curriculum
area.
Over emphasis on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander content does not
make room for the opportunity for students to study their own cultural
backgrounds.
Lack of clarity as to whether all the content in the elaborations needs to
be covered.
Skills dimensions are repetitive across year levels.
The curriculum content does not cater to the needs of all students.
Curriculum
organisation
The organisational fan diagram in each subject area does clearly depict
the organisation of the content strands in each subject area.
The content elaborations are not consistent with the descriptions.
The content descriptions should contain fewer points and greater
descriptive detail.
Lack of continuity in the flow of content across the year levels.
Lack of consistency in content headings across the strands and year
levels in each subject area.
Achievement
standards
Need annotated work samples which reflect A to E grade criteria.
Achievement standards should be presented in dot-point form, with
specific information regarding what is to be assessed.
The curriculum adopts a grade-based approach, which offers no
consideration for developmental variation.
Achievement standards do not cater to the needs of all students,
particularly those with special needs.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 51
6. Consultation Findings – Learning Area
English
Summary of findings
In considering the consolidated stakeholder feedback regarding the draft English curriculum (K-10),
the data reflects support for a national approach to English teaching, in principle. In particular, the
following key strengths were consistent across all consultation media, specific to the English
curriculum:
Language, literacy, and literature strands, in principle
In general, positive feedback was received on the inclusion of each of the three strands of
language, literacy, and literature in the English curriculum.
Content descriptions cover important material
Across the English curriculum, the clarity and coherence of the draft content descriptions,
elaborations, and work samples were all evaluated favourably. They were seen to cover
important material young Australians need to know. The elaborations were described as
illustrating the content effectively.
Achievement standards well constructed
The English achievement standards were generally considered to be clear and sequenced
appropriately. The modes in relation to the achievement standards were also commended.
A number of key challenges and issues were identified across the K-10 draft English curriculum.
Taking into account all of the feedback received, these issues relate to:
Catering for students with diverse and special needs
Concerns were expressed across all consultation media that the English curriculum does not
take into account the needs of all students, nor allows teachers the flexibility required in
teaching students with diverse learning abilities, from diverse backgrounds, and from
regional areas.
Content sequencing and placement
Consistent feedback highlighted several topics that were misplaced across year levels. There
was also a perceived lack of coherence around how content was linked across the strands.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 52
Clarity about the depth of teaching and learning required
The need for content descriptions and achievement standards that clearly specify the depth
of what students are expected to learn at each year level was deemed essential.
Development of oral competence
Consistent feedback highlighted across the curriculum, was an inadequate focus on oral
language and vocabulary development, relative to reading and writing. Particularly within the
early primary years, speaking skills need to be consolidated before reading and writing.
Inclusion of handwriting
Multiple consultation media raised the issue of a nationally approved handwriting style in
keeping with a national curriculum. Inconsistencies across States and Territories were
highlighted.
Appropriate level of ICT skills across stages of schooling
Less integration of ICT was evidenced in secondary years as opposed to a more focused
development of these skills in earlier years. Feedback indicated the communicative potential
of ICT was not being capitalised on in the draft English curriculum.
Online survey findings
In total, 821 individuals provided feedback specific to the draft English curriculum via the online
survey.
Respondents to the online survey indicated the strengths of the draft English curriculum to lie in its
underpinning rationale and aims, and its inclusion of important content. Specific to the English
curriculum, the survey statements with the highest levels of agreement were:
1. The rationale and aims of the learning area(s) provide a clear foundation and direction for the
curriculum
2. The draft content descriptions cover the important content for this learning area
Figures 6 and 7 show the proportion of agreement responses for the two statements above.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 53
14%
64%
16%
6%
14%
59%
18%
9%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Figure 6: Proportion of English learning area
responses to: ―The rationale and aims of the
learning area(s) provide a clear foundation and
direction for the curriculum‖
Figure 7: Proportion of English learning area
responses to: ―The draft content descriptions
cover the important content for this learning area‖
Although 73% of respondents indicated the draft content descriptions to cover the important content
for English, a number of other content areas were suggested as necessary. A need for greater and
more global emphasis on literature in the English content was identified by respondents. In addition,
content should explicitly seek to develop literacy skills.
“Greater focus is needed on the process of composing, drafting, reflecting, and evaluating.
This is important to the study of English as students need an opportunity to evaluate and to
reflect on their work, and the work of others. It seems that much of what they are asked to do
is comprehend, rather than synthesise their knowledge, or create meaningful texts. There
needs to be greater attention given to the higher order skills.”
School-based personnel, New South Wales
“There should be more emphasis on English and European classical literature. Students need
an understanding of their own culture and its rich history.”
Academic, New South Wales
In addition, respondents generally agreed that the draft English content descriptions are clear and
coherent. Seventy percent of respondents felt the content elaborations illustrated the descriptions
effectively, however, the elaborations were rated as less clear than the descriptions themselves. A
consideration of the draft English achievement standards revealed these to be unambiguous and
appropriately sequenced. Fifty five percent of respondents agree, however, that the English content
descriptions together with the achievement standards provide clarity about the depth of teaching and
learning required. Open-ended feedback from the online survey elaborated on the perceived clarity of
the depth of teaching and learning required:
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 54
“Many of the content descriptions make no sense without the elaborations. I don't think that
that was what was intended.”
Business or industry professional, New South Wales
“Without the achievement standards the content descriptions would be impenetrable and un-
programmable. Together they work. Without the achievement standard, which is a good
overview and provides a sense of purpose, the content descriptions would be incoherent
listing of skills.”
School-based personnel, New South Wales
With regards to general capabilities, respondents indicated that the following capabilities were clearly
present in the English curriculum content descriptions and achievement standards:
i. Literacy (90% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that this was evident)
ii. ICT (80%)
iii. Thinking skills (77%)
iv. Intercultural understanding (73%)
On the other hand, respondents were less confident that the English curriculum content descriptions
and achievement standards covered self-management and numeracy. Concerning both of these
general capabilities, 58% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that these were evident.
The majority of respondents felt cross-curriculum material was clearly evident in the English content
descriptions, specifically indigenous history and culture (75% agreement) and Australia‘s engagement
with Asia (73% agreement). Conversely, 58% of respondents felt sustainability issues were
adequately covered.
Open-ended feedback from the online survey supported the relevance of cross-curriculum material:
“These three dimensions have obvious value and significance in the curriculum and in
English can be addressed through respectfully accessing appropriate literature. It is
suggested that more clarity is required to make their nature and intent clear as contexts for
learning. There is a need to review the identification of the dimensions so that their
treatment is balanced and systematic. E.g. In English, there is no specific reference to
sustainability.”
School or curriculum authority personnel, Queensland
Online survey statements with relatively low levels of agreement mainly concerned the draft national
English curriculum being at a world-class standard and catering for all students. The specific
statements that indicate this are detailed in Table 10 below.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 55
Table 10: Low agreement survey statements – English curriculum respondents
Survey statement
% response
Strongly
disagree Disagree Agree
Strongly
agree
The draft K-10 Australian Curriculum takes into
account the needs of all students 30% 32% 32% 6%
The draft K-10 Australian Curriculum enables
teachers to cater for development diversity 24% 33% 36% 7%
The draft K-10 Australian Curriculum takes into
account available evidence about the nature of the
learner
21% 34% 39% 6%
The draft K-10 Australian Curriculum reflects a
world-class curriculum 20% 32% 40% 8%
Respondents to the on-line survey perceived a lack of inclusion of students with special needs, and
expressed dissatisfaction with the traditional approach taken to the curriculum. Open-ended feedback
from the online survey supported these results:
“There is no room in this curriculum to differentiate programming for learners with special
needs, ESL students, indigenous students, students with learning disabilities or the gifted
and talented. The emphasis on language and literacy is important. However, if Australia is
to compete in the global arena, we need to extend our top students and this curriculum has
less scope to do this. A ‟back to basics‟ approach is NOT what we need, going into
Australia's future."
School-based personnel, New South Wales
“It is very disappointing to see a draft curriculum that ignores everything we know about
language acquisition from the past thirty years' educational research. The focus of the
curriculum appears regressive rather than progressive, with an emphasis on teaching
rather than learning. It is a great pity to see such an opportunity for curriculum reform
driven by simplistic, populist slogans: 'back to basics'.”
School-based personnel, New South Wales
Consultation forum findings
In total, 40 feedback forms were received in State and Territory consultation forums that related
specifically to the draft English curriculum. In the follow-up national English forum, 77 participants
provided further feedback and suggestions for improvement to the curriculum.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 56
The key findings from the State and territory forums highlight strengths around the clarity of the
rationale and aims of the learning area with more than 80% of forum groups indicating the aims as
clear and appropriate.
With regards to the curriculum content, State/Territory forum participants generally felt the English
content represented the important material all young Australians should learn. Sixty five percent of
participants indicated this to be the case. A further 68% of participants felt the English content was
different from what is currently expected in their State or Territory. Recurring trends that were evident
in the consultation forum findings around English curriculum content included:
Handwriting as a positive inclusion (however, common syllabus required between states in
order to provided a national consistency in style and the point at which it is taught)
Graphic and visual texts as a positive inclusion
Greater emphasis on spelling required. A lack of focus on spelling was identified across the
curriculum and, thus, it could be considered a non-essential skill, particularly in later year
levels.
Issues were identified relating to the sequencing of content, and the consistency of content across
the strands. The questions with the highest level of disagreement centred on these issues and are
displayed below.
5%
32%
25%
23%
15%
2%
25%
40%
10%
23%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
No Comment
Figure 8: Proportion of English forum responses to:
―The placement and sequencing of content is
appropriate at and across all year levels‖
Figure 9: Proportion of English forum responses
to: ―The content at each year level is coherent
across the strands‖
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 57
Particular content identified as being misplaced in the curriculum included:
i. Punctuation, grammar, and phonics. Grammar, in particular, was often cited as being placed
randomly in the content. There was also sentiment that the sequencing of grammar, and
punctuation was too prescriptive. National forum participants suggested that it would be
more appropriate to indicate the content needed to be covered while allowing teachers the
flexibility to integrate this with other subject matter.
ii. Oral competence. While oral competence was identified as a key area of importance,
participants felt that insufficient emphasis was placed on this area. It was suggested that oral
competence be taught earlier, as an important precursor to reading, and writing.
iii. Literacy. National forum participants suggested literacy should be introduced at primary
school level, rather than K level, where children may still be developing oral competence.
iv. ICT. Several forum groups highlighted the low level of ICT skills in the curriculum. It was
suggested that the communicative potential of ICT be emphasised, and students encouraged
to use it in creative ways.
Considering the feedback of a lack of coherence across the English curriculum, the following
suggestions were put forward at the national forum:
Common headings should be used to make the developmental continuum more visible,
and also to identify any gaps
Cross-strand headings should be used as a solution to the issue of content descriptors
being categorised in different strands from year to year
Modes should be specified throughout the content descriptions to ensure sufficient oral,
spelling, and visual literacy is included
Across the State and Territory forum groups, the English achievement standards were generally
considered useful and well constructed. National forum participants felt the strands (and strand
names) were strengths, particularly literacy in K-6, and the modes in relation to the achievement
standards were also perceived favourably. The specific statements that indicate this are detailed in
Table 11 below.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 58
Table 11: Achievement standards statements – English curriculum forum participants
Survey statement
% forum group responses
Strongly
disagree Disagree Agree
Strongly
agree
No
comment
The achievement standards clearly
describe the expected quality of learning
for each year level 5% 20% 37% 18% 20%
The achievement standards at each year
level represents the learning you would
expect, having taught the content for that
year
2% 23% 40% 10% 25%
You could confidently assess student
achievement of these standards 15% 15% 37% 13% 20%
Further clarity, detail, and definition of the achievement standards focused on a number of issues:
The achievement standards should be displayed before the content for each year level to
ensure different modes of learning are incorporated into teaching plans.
The standards should be more inclusive, allow for differentiation, and reflect the diversity
of learners, and ways of learning.
The K achievement standards are pitched too high. Forum feedback revealed that K-level
English was ambitious in what it aims to achieve, and does not indicate how students are
to arrive at the achievement standards of reading and writing. Respondents suggested
learning at this level should be explorative and gradual. ―Enquiry-based‖ was suggested
as more suitable terminology to replace ―play-based‖.
The elaborations and work samples were well received across the forums. The elaborations were
regarded as valuable support for people to unpack concepts, especially teachers working outside of
their field, or expertise. Similarly, the inclusion of general capabilities in the draft English curriculum
received positive feedback at the national forum. Participants expressed that they were clearly
evident, appropriately placed in the curriculum, and contextualised well in terms of English.
The inclusion of indigenous perspectives in the draft English curriculum received much commentary in
the national forum. Participants indicated that while this is an important inclusion in the curriculum,
and the use of texts by contemporary indigenous writers is a strength, there is the risk of it being
perceived as tokenistic, insensitive, or overly simplistic. Indigenous perspectives should be more
considered so students not only read the texts, but also reflect on why the texts are being used and
recognise the heterogeneity of indigenous cultures.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 59
In terms of the online format, two-thirds of State/Territory forum groups who provided a rating
described it as user-friendly and easy to navigate. Fifty-seven percent thought all parts of the
Australian Curriculum could be easily accessed on the website. Forum participants suggested
hyperlinks to scope and sequence, and pop-up windows within the document to provide examples,
definitions, and explanations.
Feedback from Peak Body submissions
In addition to the key themes identified across the curriculum in Section 5, a small number of specific
issues were raised in Peak Body written submissions in relation to the draft English curriculum. These
recurring themes are summarised below. A more detailed summary of Peak Body feedback regarding
the draft English curriculum can be found under each State and Territory in Section 8.
Item Feedback summary Typical quotes
Curriculum
content:
general
Inconsistent content
identified, specifically
in relation to links
across strands and
handwriting across
states
―Will there be further discussions regarding a
nationally approved handwriting style?‖
―While the intention of the strands language,
literacy, and literature are surely intended to be
understood as inter-related, these connections are
not in the document and they are not necessarily
easy to make.‖
Curriculum
content:
general
Limited content in
relation to oral
language
―The standards could be set higher with a stronger
start to development of language skills.‖
Curriculum
content:
manageability
Content overcrowding,
particularly Asian and
Aboriginal texts, and
issues with teaching
the required content in
depth and within
timeframes
―There is too much to cover in this document
meaning that it will not be covered in enough
depth. There is too much content to ensure that
this will be a world-class curriculum; we are not
going to get depth, only breadth.‖
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 60
Feedback from public submissions
Although the majority of public submissions discussed diverse issues across the curriculum, two
recurring themes were particularly evident relating, specifically, to the draft English curriculum:
1. Catering for diverse students. Concerns were raised about the applicability of some content
to special-needs students. This was particularly relevant in terms of the grammar skill
development for ESL students.
2. Content clarity. It was considered necessary to provide more clarity and specificity in the
English curriculum, particularly, in terms of the range of texts to be studied, including genres
and mediums (i.e. theatrical plays).
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 61
Consultation portal data findings
Feedback from online survey portal detailed a number of general strengths to the national English
curriculum. The focus on literature within the English curriculum was viewed as particularly exciting,
as it builds a rich context for all language learning. Furthermore, the emphasis placed on the meta-
cognitive aspects of comparing, and connecting texts to students‘ own lives was seen to be an
important aspect of the K curriculum. Additionally, the division of the English curriculum into the three
strands of language, literacy, and literature, each with an equal importance and time allocation, was
recognised as a strength by respondents.
Specific limitations identified in the draft English curriculum are presented below.
Issue Feedback summary Year level focus
Handwriting
The national curriculum has not adopted a universal
approach to handwriting.
A universal approach to handwriting needs to be
incorporated into the national curriculum in order to
provide consistency between the states.
Handwriting is an
important component of
the primary years
curriculum.
Play-based
learning
Play-based learning is absent from the early years
curriculum.
The Kindergarten to Year 3 curriculum needs to
integrate literacy into play-based activity and
provide opportunities for children to dramatise and
discuss imaginative elements of texts.
Language and
communication skills
learnt in the early
primary years are
developed best in a
play-based learning
environment.
Sight
reading
There is confusion as to how many sight words are
to be learnt from Kindergarten to Year 3.
Furthermore, there is a concern that teaching sight
words will create huge gaps in literacy, as students
will rely on memorising the visual pattern of words
rather than understanding the connection between
sounds and letters.
A detailed glossary of the sight words that are to be
learnt from kindergarten to Year 3 is recommended.
An approach to early literacy that incorporates both
phonics and sight reading should be adopted.
The Kindergarten to
Year 3 curriculum
places a strong
emphasis on teaching a
varying number of high-
frequency sight words.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 62
Issue Feedback summary Year level focus
Asian
literacy
There is confusion as to depth of study required in
the Asian literacy component of the curriculum and
what texts will be required. Furthermore, the specific
focus on Asian literature is viewed as detracting
from the array of cultural backgrounds that make up
the student population in Australia.
The curriculum needs to adopt a more multi-cultural
focus, rather than focusing specifically on Asia.
There is a strong
emphasis on Asian
literacy in Year 7.
However, Year 7
students will find it
difficult to understand
the influence of English
in Asia before having a
sound understanding of
English in Australia.
Oral
language
The curriculum does not place a strong emphasis on
oral language and vocabulary development to
consolidate oral language skills prior to reading and
writing.
A stronger emphasis on oral language, particularly in
the early primary years, which focuses on correct
speech pronunciation, expressing opinions, and
appropriate social interaction.
Many children in
kindergarten experience
speech delays. These
skills need to be
improved before learning
to read and write.
ESL
learners
There is no concession made for students from non-
English speaking backgrounds in the content or
achievement standards.
ESL learners will require additional support
materials and language-focused teaching to be able
to identify errors and self-correct their work.
ESL students in the early
years of schooling will be
set up to fail without a
course that
accommodates their
specific requirements.
ICT
There is too much emphasis on ICT in the early years
of primary school, while ICT is less integrated into
the English course in later years. Furthermore, most
schools lack the resources to accommodate ICT
learning in Kindergarten to Year 3 classes.
ICT needs to be strongly integrated across the year
levels, particularly in the secondary years, with a
reduction in the early primary years. Guidelines
regarding expected teaching of keyboard skills also
need to be provided.
Kindergarten students
are required to write
sentences on a keyboard
before perfecting pencil-
writing skills. This will be
too demanding for most
students and is not
commensurate with their
development.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 63
Mathematics
Summary of findings
In considering the consolidated stakeholder feedback regarding the draft mathematics curriculum (K-
10), the data reflect support for a national approach to mathematics teaching, in principle. In
particular, the following key strengths were consistent across all consultation media, specific to the
mathematics curriculum:
Content descriptions cover the important material
The clarity, coherence, and coverage of the draft content descriptions and elaborations were
all evaluated favourably.
Stronger connections between strands
The enhanced linkages between strands and the greater clarity now afforded to these
connections were commended.
Real world application
The inclusion of real-world applications of mathematics, such as calculating discounts, buying
and selling, tax and GST were considered a strength. Overall, a stronger emphasis on
financial literacy was recommended to instil sound everyday money skills in students.
A number of key challenges and issues were identified across the K-10 draft mathematics curriculum.
Taking into account all of the feedback received, these issues related to:
Content and standards pitched and sequenced inappropriately
Consistent feedback indicated content and achievement standards have been set too high,
and are generally too difficult for the average student. A stronger focus on the sequencing of
content was also raised in order to better reflect student consolidation of concepts.
Content overcrowding
Concerns were expressed that the mathematics curriculum is too content heavy, particularly
in terms of statistics, with a feeling this may detract from the depth, and understanding of
other topics.
Catering for students with diverse and special needs
Concerns were expressed across all consultation media that the mathematics curriculum
does not take into account all students, nor allows teachers the flexibility required in teaching
students with diverse learning abilities, from diverse backgrounds, and from regional areas.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 64
Problem solving coverage
Feedback indicated problem solving was not sufficiently considered in the draft curriculum. It
was felt that this skill needed to be strengthened across all strands, and specific reference
made to enhance this capability within students.
Incorporating ICT skills
Specific inclusion of ICT skills was not clearly evident in the draft mathematics curriculum
across all year levels. More rigorous linkages between content and technology need to be
made in the document along with software that can be used. Using ICT in mathematics needs
to reflect a change in thinking, and not just a change in the tools used.
Guidelines around the use of calculators
Guidance was sought around the appropriate stage and level to introduce calculators.
Feedback highlighted the fine line between introducing calculators too early, which may not
allow students to develop their own mathematical processing skills, and failing to incorporate
calculators into other subject areas.
Online survey findings
In total, 793 individuals provided feedback specific to the mathematics draft curriculum via the online
survey.
Respondents to the online survey indicated several strengths of the draft mathematics curriculum,
including clear and coherent content descriptions, and content elaborations, that both effectively and
sufficiently illustrate these descriptions. For each of these areas, greater than 70% of respondents
agreed there was sufficient clarity and coverage. Specific to the mathematics curriculum, the survey
statements with the highest levels of agreement were around structure and content:
1. The rationale and aims of the learning area(s) provide a clear foundation and direction for the
curriculum
2. The organisation of the learning area(s) provides a coherent view of the key elements and
features of the curriculum
3. The draft content descriptions cover the important content for this learning area
Figures 10 and 11 show the proportion of agreement responses for the two statements above related
to the draft structure of the curriculum.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 65
16%
69%
11%
4%
15%
62%
18%
5%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Figure 10: Proportion of mathematics learning area
responses to: ―The rationale and aims of the
learning area(s) provide a clear foundation and
direction for the curriculum‖
Figure 11: Proportion of mathematics learning
area responses to: ―The organisation of the
learning area(s) provides a coherent view of the
key elements and features of the curriculum‖
Although 79% of respondents indicated the draft content descriptions cover the important content
for mathematics, respondents nonetheless identified an overabundance of content, and an
overemphasis on data analysis to the detriment of teaching in other areas.
Open-ended feedback from the online survey elaborated on these views of the mathematics
content:
“There is a preference for practical maths at the expense of fundamental concepts.
Therefore, Number is emphasised over Algebra; Measurement over Geometry and
Statistics totally swamps the Statistics and Probability stream.”
School-based personnel, Victoria
“There is too much emphasis on data analysis in this course, students are expected to
revisit data collection (in various forms) every year 7-10. This is unnecessary. Students are
happy to collect data a couple of times, but then the novelty wears off. The circle geometry
could be omitted.”
School-based personnel
There was less agreement across respondents regarding the extent to which the draft content
descriptions and achievement standards were sufficiently challenging for students at each year
level:
54% of respondents felt the draft content descriptions were pitched appropriately
55% of respondents felt the draft achievement standards were pitched appropriately
(despite 71% believing draft achievement standards were coherent)
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 66
Many respondents regarded the nature of the achievement standards negatively, noting that
matching achievement to year levels can be discouraging to less able students.
Open-ended feedback from the online survey elucidated respondents‘ conflicting views on the
achievement standards:
“The achievement standards are a reasonable description of the progressive
understandings. The major problem arises when this progression is tagged to a year of
schooling. Perhaps 40-50% of students can genuinely maintain this "rate of progress" with
a great deal of understanding and mastery. The tagging of these stages to years of
schooling inevitably means that students not coping will be more and more disadvantaged
as they continue if this curriculum is taught at a year level.”
Business or industry professional, Tasmania
“Some harder content is required, at a younger age. That will only work for some kids. The
standards seem to be just a list of skills, and while this is helpful as a checklist to see how
kids are going, we are trying to differentiate – to personalise learning. I want the right to
teach content from different levels, for students who are weak or advanced.”
School-based personnel, Victoria
“The draft achievement standards allow students to achieve what is needed by that year
and also challenge them very well.”
Academic, Western Australia
Almost half of the respondents (47%) disagreed that the annotated work sample assist to illustrate
and exemplify the achievement standards. Respondents suggested work samples would be more
beneficial if they were accompanied by rubrics and represented a greater range of assessment
tasks.
Open-ended feedback from the online survey provided further suggestions for work samples:
“There are not enough. A need for lots of samples over every year group to demonstrate A
to E achievement standards. All samples are useful as they allow a common
understanding of what is required at a particular standard for both teachers and students.”
Academic, New South Wales
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 67
In combination, 57% of respondents agree with the mathematics content descriptions, together
with the achievement standards, provide clarity about the depth of teaching and learning required.
Open-ended feedback from the online survey elaborated on this concern:
“I feel that there is no clarity at all. Nothing mandatory, nothing in order. No indication of
the extent of depth necessary for each level. It's all left to the teacher (and perhaps their
experience, interests, and competency). What about the new teachers? Experienced
teachers won't be around forever. National Anarchy!”
Academic, New South Wales
With regards to general capabilities, respondents indicated the following capabilities were clearly
present in the mathematics curriculum content descriptions, and achievement standards:
i. Numeracy (87% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed this was evident)
ii. Thinking skills (73%)
On the other hand, respondents were less confident that the mathematics curriculum content
descriptions and achievement standards covered intercultural understanding, and ethical
behaviour. Concerning both of these general capabilities 36% of respondents agreed or strongly
agreed that these were evident.
Online survey statements with relatively low levels of agreement mainly concerned the draft
Australian Curriculum for mathematics, catering for diverse student requirements. The specific
statements indicating this are detailed in Table 12 below.
Table 12: Low agreement survey statements – mathematics curriculum respondents
Survey statement
% response
Strongly
disagree Disagree Agree
Strongly
agree
The draft K-10 Australian Curriculum takes into
account the needs of all students 25% 40% 30% 5%
The draft K-10 Australian Curriculum enables
teachers to cater for development diversity 19% 42% 34% 5%
The draft K-10 Australian Curriculum takes into
account available evidence about the nature of
the learner 14% 42% 38% 6%
The draft K-10 Australian Curriculum reflects a
world-class curriculum 14% 33% 46% 7%
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 68
Respondents indicated dissatisfaction with the inclusivity of mathematics in the Australian
Curriculum. This was of particular concern for students with learning difficulties, and low
achievers. Gifted and high achieving students were felt to have sufficient scope for learning.
Open-ended feedback from the online survey further elaborated on these issues:
“I believe that some of the content and standards set are too difficult for many students. If
the standards are meant to reflect the average student, many will not achieve these
standards. While we should have the bar set high in order to improve, I think it must be
acknowledged that as students progress through education, the learning gap often gets
wider. There is a cohort of students that could never achieve at the Year 10 standard and
their learning needs to meet their needs and abilities.”
School-based personnel, Tasmania
“A continuum of maths skills and understandings would allow teachers to tailor to
individual needs. Individual staff will obviously need to adjust the curriculum to their own
class diversity and needs.”
School-based personnel, Victoria
Consultation forum findings
In total, 31 feedback forms were received in State and Territory consultation forums specifically
related to the draft mathematics curriculum. In the follow-up national mathematics forum, 79
participants provided further feedback and suggestions for improvement to the curriculum.
The key findings from the State and Territory forums highlight strengths around the clarity of the
rationale and aims of the mathematics learning area with more than 94% of forum groups indicating
the aims as clear and appropriate. In addition, 87% felt the organisation of the draft mathematics
curriculum provides a coherent view of its key elements, and characteristics.
With regards to the curriculum content, State/Territory forum participants generally felt the
mathematics content represents the important material all young Australians should learn. Seventy
one percent of participants indicated this to be the case. Eighty one percent of participants expressed
that the mathematics content is different from what is currently expected in their state, or territory. A
particular strength identified was the enhanced connections and linkages between strands in the
draft curriculum, and the greater clarity now afforded to these connections.
The primary issues identified by forum participants related to the manageability, placement, and
sequencing of content. The questions with the highest level of disagreement centred on these issues
and are displayed below.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 69
3%
36%
36%
19%
6%3%
29%
29%
26%
13%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
No Comment
Figure 12: Proportion of mathematics forum responses
to: ―The content at each year level is manageable and
able to be taught in depth and within the time
available‖
Figure 13: Proportion of mathematics forum
responses to: ―The placement and sequencing of
content is appropriate at and across all year levels‖
The majority of feedback from the State/Territory and national consultation forum concerned the
inclusion (or potential exclusion) of content at particular levels, and what could sufficiently be taught.
Overall, forum respondents felt that across all year levels, it would be preferable to consolidate more
and cover concepts in more depth – even if it meant reducing the content covered. This was
particularly required within years K to 6 because of developmental considerations and from Years 6 to
8 to allow for a transition period.
Sequencing: A stronger focus on the sequencing of content was raised across all forum groups to
better reflect student consolidation of concepts. While it was acknowledged in State and Territory
forums that some changes in sequencing have improved the curriculum (e.g. with fractions),
participants still expressed the need for further clarity. Generally speaking, participants indicated a
need to have a clear progression of student development, and linkages to previously taught concepts.
Teachers expressed a need to see the links, and sequencing of concept development, to know where
the learning is heading. Particular sequencing issues:
Tracking sequences perceived as difficult. For example, in Year 3, the subheading
―symmetry‖ is used, then ―geometry‖ in Year 4, and then ―time‖, then to ‖visualising‖.
Consistent headings were suggested for improving the clarity and coherence of
connections and conceptual development.
Overview of the lateral sequence of concepts. National forum participants suggested
developing a continuum of skills and content be developed across each concept to
provide teachers with the ability to look across year levels, and strands. This would enable
identification of links and the progression of ideas, in order to better track student
progress. This was felt particularly relevant for the algebra content.
Sequencing of content in early years. Greater simplicity and clarity in relation to number
learning/counting, place value, space, and measurement.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 70
Extent of algebra and geometry content at particular levels. Respondents identified the
need for consistency in the development of the concepts in these areas. Feedback
indicated this would best be achieved through ensuring that the proficiency strands and
capabilities were present in the content and elaborations. Specific content-related
recommendations are presented in Appendix L.
Extent of statistics content. Participants indicated statistics, in particular, data analysis,
as an area to be addressed across the curriculum in other learning areas. Limiting this
area to reduce overcrowding was recommended. Specific recommendations related to
statistics content are presented in Appendix L
Other areas identified as being misplaced or lacking in the curriculum included:
Financial Literacy. The majority of respondents identified financial mathematics as an
important life skill in need of greater focus. Specifically, financial literacy could be
embedded in elaborations with examples, incorporated into measurement, and connected
to the general capabilities. While money should be recognised as one application of
mathematics, participants indicated that its emphasis should not be excessive.
Problem Solving. According to forum respondents, students must be given the opportunity
to develop a repertoire of problem-solving strategies through exposure to a variety of
problems. This is not sufficiently considered in the draft national curriculum. Sufficient
scope for the inclusion of problem solving was identified in the curriculum. For example,
opportunities to highlight problem solving in everyday situations could be included in
elaborations
Across the State and Territory forum groups, the mathematics achievement standards were
considered an issue of high importance. General feedback indicated greater clarity was required
around the achievement standards. There was a sense from forum participants that the achievement
standards were simply a summary of the content, and do not sufficiently articulate the depth of level
of understanding required. The specific statements supporting this are detailed in Table 13 overleaf.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 71
Table 13: Achievement standards statements – mathematics curriculum forum participants
Survey statement
% forum group responses
Strongly
disagree Disagree Agree
Strongly
agree
No
comment
The achievement standards clearly
describe the expected quality of learning
for each year level 10% 32% 39% 13% 6%
The achievement standards at each year
level represents the learning you would
expect, having taught the content for that
year
7% 19% 58% 6% 10%
You could confidently assess student
achievement of these standards 16% 29% 29% 16% 10%
Further clarity, detail, and definition of the achievement standards focused on a number of issues:
Initial clarification of the purpose of the achievement standards to their audience
Increasing the specificity of the achievement standards so they are not open for
interpretation. A shared understanding of what the learning expectations are was deemed
imperative
Aligning the language of the standards with the content descriptions
Providing grade level descriptors (A to E). These were considered a necessity
Encouraging the use of the work samples as illustrations of the standards. One sample
was not considered sufficient to grade a student. Additional samples are required in
addition to that of a typical C-grade student
Embedding the proficiency strand in the achievement standards supported by examples
of what the proficiencies look like for each grade (A to E)
Modifying the language used. For example, using the word ―visualise‖ through the
curriculum to build conceptual understanding and connections between concepts and the
students‘ world; active verbs used to reflect constructivist methodology; avoiding terms
such as ―fluency‖ and ―confidence‖ as they are seen as too subjective and necessitate
the provision of national assessment tasks, rubrics, and examples
Specific recommendations related to the achievement standards across years levels are presented in
Appendix M.
The inclusion of general capabilities in the draft mathematics curriculum received mixed feedback at
the national forum. Some participants felt that the general capabilities were not evident enough and
should be explicitly woven through the content descriptions, while others felt the general capabilities
reflect pedagogy. It was suggested that the elaborations could provide more context and opportunities
for meaningful incorporation of the general capabilities. This could be extended by work samples and
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 72
evidences. The application of ―literacy‖ was specifically cited with a distinction required in the
curriculum between technical literacy, mathematical knowledge, and reasoning.
In terms of the online format, 83% of State/Territory forum groups who provided a rating described it
as user friendly and easy to navigate. A further 79% thought all parts of the Australian Curriculum can
be easily accessed on the website.
Feedback from peak body submissions
In addition to the key themes identified across the curriculum in Section 5, a small number of specific
issues were raised in peak body submissions in relation to the draft mathematics curriculum. These
recurring themes are summarised below. A more detailed summary of peak-body feedback regarding
the draft mathematics curriculum can be found under each State and Territory in Section 8.
Item Feedback summary Typical quotes
Curriculum
content:
manageability
Heavy focus on
statistics
―There is an over-emphasis on statistics/data and
less emphasis on the skills of problem solving that
the 21st century student will need.‖
Curriculum
content:
general
Lack of focus on
problem solving and
mathematical skills
that are applicable in
everyday situations
Curriculum
Content:
Sequencing
Content descriptions
and standards are not
pitched appropriately
―While the majority of the content is similar, there
are higher expectations for lower- and middle-
ability students.‖
ICT
Low skills focus on ICT
―The ICT component is a concern. The inclusion of
ICT as a capability is not seen as rigorous, but
rather, identification of seemingly ‗superficial‘
opportunities to teach ICT.‖
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 73
Feedback from public submissions
Although the majority of public submissions discussed diverse issues across the curriculum, three
recurring themes were particularly evident relating, specifically, to the draft mathematics curriculum:
1. Content overcrowding. Mathematics was deemed to be too content heavy, particularly in early
years, and in Years 8 to 10. It was suggested that making several streams available for
students in mathematics from early high school would enable more meaningful learning
2. Financial mathematics. It was frequently suggested that financial literacy should be given
greater emphasis to instil sound everyday money skills in students
3. Calculator training. It was also recommended that the use of calculators be taught explicitly
as this is an important skill for students to learn so that they are not disadvantaged in senior
years
Consultation portal data findings
Feedback from online survey portal detailed a number of general strengths of the national
mathematics curriculum. The focus on the real-world applications of maths, such as calculating
discounts, buying and selling, tax, and GST were well received and thought to be a useful addition to
the curriculum. Furthermore, distributing the mathematics course across year levels, rather than
across stages, was seen to provide a more manageable set of outcomes that can be extended for
talented students or revised at a lower level for those having difficulty. This was cited, particularly, at
primary school levels.
Specific limitations identified in the draft mathematics curriculum are presented below.
Issue Feedback summary Year level focus
Calculators
Calculators are introduced too early in the curriculum,
which does not allow students to develop their own
mental strategies for solving mathematical problems.
Calculators should not be introduced until Year 7, when
students begin to undertake more complex
calculations.
Calculators are introduced
in Kindergarten, when
children as still learning
how to read and write, and
are incorporated
increasingly in subsequent
years.
Statistics and
probability
Overemphasis on this area.
A reorganisation of the maths curriculum to cater
statistics content to the maths ability of each year level
is needed.
The statistics content is
strongly emphasised
across all year levels,
particularly in Year 7.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 74
Issue Feedback summary Year level focus
ICT
ICT isn‘t clearly articulated in the rationale and aims
for the curriculum or at key stages throughout the
curriculum. Furthermore, the use of ICT in maths
needs to reflect a change in thinking, not simply a
means of doing old stuff in a new way.
A clearer outline of the types of ICT to be used,
including software packages and calculators, needs to
be provided. Furthermore, the curriculum needs to
showcase some of the maths problems that can now
be more efficiently solved with computers (i.e. cross-
sectional views of 3D objects and drawing 3D shapes).
ICT is not clearly or
consistently incorporated into
the curriculum across all year
levels.
Numbers and
counting
The expectations for counting and number knowledge
are either too basic or too advanced in the primary
schools curriculum.
A detailed strategy for numbers and counting from
Kindergarten to Year 6 that is consistent and
developmentally appropriate is required.
The curriculum currently
outlines that kindergarten
students should know
numbers from 1 to 20; Year
1 students should know
numbers up to 100; Year 2
students should know
numbers up to 130; and Year
3 students should know
numbers up to 1000.
Advanced
courses
Content prescribed in Year 9 and 10 will be too
advanced for some students not contemplating
tertiary-level maths, which necessitates the need for
an advanced maths course in these years.
The curriculum should make concessions for students
who may not have the ability to successfully undertake
preparatory topics for calculus, by implementing an
advanced maths course in Years 9 and 10.
The Year 9 and 10 maths
content include complex
tasks that not all students
will be capable of completing.
Multiplication
Topic not covered comprehensively in the primary
curriculum, while multiplication by factors of 7 is not
covered at all.
Times tables up to 12 need to be taught and
reinforced from Year 1 to Year 6 in order to ensure
students are confident with multiplication before
starting high school.
Multiplication is an
important concept that
should be developed in
early primary school and
mastered by the end of
primary school.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 75
Science
Summary of findings
In considering the consolidated stakeholder feedback regarding the draft science curriculum (K-10),
the data reflect support for a national science curriculum. In particular, the following key strengths
were consistent across all consultation media, specific to the science curriculum:
Focus on scientific inquiry skills
In general, positive feedback was received for the importance placed on the development of
scientific evaluation and assessment skills, and the application of these same skills in
everyday life.
Science as a Human Endeavour
The inclusion of this strand in the science curriculum was commended. Feedback across
consultation processes felt it was a vital aspect of scientific learning, feeling that a
connection of science and culture would encourage the engagement of more students.
General capabilities well integrated
The draft science curriculum was highly rated against a number of capabilities, specifically:
teamwork, ICT, literacy, numeracy, and thinking skills.
A number of key challenges and issues were identified across the K-10 draft science curriculum.
Taking into account all of the feedback received, these issues relate to:
Content overcrowding
A common issue raised was that the Science Understanding (―SU‖) strand was content heavy
and covering it all in sufficient depth would be difficult. Specifically, geological content was
overrepresented. A specific cause of this overcrowding was put down to overlapping content,
particularly with content in the geography and health curricula.
Achievement standards pitched and sequenced inappropriately
Consistent feedback indicated that the achievement standards are pitched too high across
year levels. Clearer standards specifying the depth of student learning required at each year
level were considered critical.
Resourcing implications
Written submissions, in particular, expressed the national science curriculum to require
equipment and facilities that many primary schools and regional schools may not have (e.g.
science labs).
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 76
Emerging and contemporary sciences
Forum participants and peak body written submissions expressed that the science curriculum
was lacking in content around emerging sciences, and new technologies. Incorporating this
material into the teaching of the traditional sciences, along with having work samples that
reflect this material was recommended in order to sufficiently explore contemporary issues.
Online survey findings
In total, 555 individuals provided feedback specific to the science draft curriculum via the online
survey.
Respondents to the online survey indicated a number of strengths of the draft science curriculum
including coherent content descriptions that covered important content. Seventy one percent of
respondents felt the draft curriculum provides coherence and continuity across the stages of
schooling. Specifically, the survey statements with the highest levels of agreement focused on the
draft structure:
1. The rationale and aims of the learning area(s) provide a clear foundation and direction for the
curriculum
2. The organisation of the learning area(s) provides a coherent view of the key elements and
features of the curriculum
Figures 14 and 15 show the proportion of agreement responses for the two statements above.
12%
67%
14%
7%
11%
64%
17%
8%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Figure 14: Proportion of science learning area
responses to: ―The rationale and aims of the
learning area(s) provide a clear foundation and
direction for the curriculum‖
Figure 15: Proportion of science learning area
responses to: ―The organisation of the learning
area(s) provides a coherent view of the key
elements and features of the curriculum‖
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 77
Open-ended feedback from the online survey demonstrated agreement with these statements:
“The rationale and aims are clear to read and can be understood easily. They create a well
defined reasoning for the move from the four strands back to a more traditional approach.”
Academic, Western Australia
“Very good curriculum construct. Strands an excellent way of organising”
School or curriculum authority personnel, South Australia
Although 70% of respondents indicated that the draft content descriptions cover the important
content for science, a number of areas were suggested for inclusion in the Australian Curriculum. A
focus on contemporary concepts and the relation of science to society would be highly regarded by
respondents. There were several areas respondents viewed as lacking in content, particularly,
chemistry, psychology, and energy, while earth sciences had too much content.
Open-ended feedback from the online survey provided suggestions for important content for science:
”Chemistry is an enabling science yet there is very little actual chemistry. Reactions such as
redox practical experiments, organic chemistry (food groups/polymers). These are more
accessible to students than the proposed reaction and stronger chemistry. Concern that
research was considered to be web based, not actual experiments.”
School-based personnel, Victoria
“There seems to be an inordinate amount of earth and environmental content in particular
weather. This is normally covered in geography.”
School-based personnel, Victoria
“Psychology is a senior science subject and is not included in the junior curriculum.
Nanotechnology and other disciplines that cross the traditional subject areas need to be
included for the future. Topics such as nutrition, forensics, astronomy should be more
explicit”
School or curriculum authority personnel, South Australia
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 78
The survey findings indicate that the draft content elaborations generally illustrated the content
descriptions effectively (69% of respondents agreed). Despite the aforementioned positive
evaluations, there was less agreement across respondents regarding the extent to which the draft
content descriptions, and achievement standards were sufficiently challenging for students at each
year level:
56% of respondents felt that the draft content descriptions are pitched appropriately
57% of respondents felt that the draft content descriptions are sequenced appropriately
56% of respondents felt that the draft achievement standards are pitched appropriately
Open-ended feedback from the online survey demonstrated these conflicting views:
“The sequencing of descriptors and the achievement standards seem to be sequenced
about right. Well done!! It is the lack of depth and clarity that, for me, is the issue.”
School-based personnel, Western Australia
“Very disjointed. Seem to pick on random sections of the elaborations rather than the
content descriptions. Need to be overarching rather than specific. Why a „C‟ level? What
about the others? What would an „A‟ look like?”
School-based personnel, New South Wales
“The achievement standards are unhelpful and do not adequately describe a realistic
picture of an average child (C) at each level.”
Community member, New South Wales
Almost half of the respondents (45%) disagreed that the annotated work sample assists to illustrate
and exemplify the achievement standards.
“A wider selection of work samples will greatly aid in the understanding of the standards,
but, they need to be annotated with specifics and there needs to be a wide variety showing
the different levels.”
School-based personnel, New South Wales
In combination, 44% of respondents agree that the science content descriptions, together with the
achievement standards, provide clarity about the depth of teaching and learning required.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 79
―The content descriptors need to be better written to provide indicators of depth of
treatment as they are the only mandatory part of the course. The achievement standards
are currently, in many cases, simple re-writes of the content descriptors and do not provide
for clarity of interpretation.”
Community member, New South Wales
With regards to general capabilities, the draft science curriculum was highly rated against a number
of capabilities:
i. Teamwork (77% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that this was evident)
ii. ICT (76%)
iii. Literacy (74%)
iv. Numeracy (72%)
v. Thinking skills (71%)
On the other hand, respondents were less confident that the science curriculum content descriptions
and achievement standards covered social competence, and creativity. Concerning both of these
general capabilities, 57% of respondents agreed, or strongly agreed that these were evident.
The majority of respondents felt that a commitment to sustainability was clearly evident in the science
content descriptions, with 79% of respondents indicating such. Substantially fewer respondents (46%)
felt that Australia‘s engagement with Asia is adequately covered.
Online survey statements with relatively low levels of agreement mainly concerned the draft Australian
Curriculum for science catering for diverse student requirements. The specific statements that
indicate this are detailed in Table 14 below.
Table 14: Low agreement survey statements – science curriculum respondents
Survey statement
% response
Strongly
disagree Disagree Agree
Strongly
agree
The draft K-10 Australian Curriculum takes into
account the needs of all students 26% 42% 30% 2%
The draft K-10 Australian Curriculum is not
overcrowded 38% 23% 31% 8%
The draft K-10 Australian Curriculum enables
teachers to cater for developmental diversity 21% 35% 39% 5%
The draft K-10 Australian Curriculum reflects a
world-class curriculum 18% 34% 42% 6%
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 80
Open-ended feedback from the online survey elaborated on the above issues:
“There is simply far too much content to be able to treat any area in depth. Students need
much more time to consolidate scientific principles by observations and skill development.
The huge variety of different topics simply means that teachers will need to rush delivery
and not allow for genuine enjoyment and discovery. Also, certainly will not allow for
differentiation of the curriculum for ALL students. Inquiry-based learning as one example of
a teaching strategy requires time.”
Academic, Victoria
“I don't think it allows for continuity of learning. It does not consider the developmental
growth of student learning (to begin with simple concepts and then build on those in future
years). It will cause many weaker students to be left behind earlier and it will disengage
many girls from science as concepts are very traditional, boring, and not inspirational in our
changing world. Scientific inquiry skills cannot be developed with such a content-laden
curriculum.”
School-based personnel, Victoria
“Can we develop our own world-class curriculum that does not import failed methods from,
primarily, the UK and the USA? They usually ditch these as we are taking them up. We have
great ideas in this country!”
School-based personnel, Western Australia
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 81
Consultation forum findings
In total, 31 feedback forms were received in State and Territory consultation forums that related
specifically to the draft science curriculum. In the follow-up national science forum, 83 participants
provided further feedback and suggestions for improvement to the curriculum.
The key findings from the State and Territory forums highlight strengths around the clarity of the
rationale and aims of the science learning area, with more than 90% of forum groups indicating that
the aims are clear, and appropriate. Forum participants also indicated strengths around:
Inquiry skills as a positive inclusion
SHE as a positive inclusion, considered an important aspect of scientific learning
In general, science forum participants expressed relatively less confidence around the
appropriateness and breadth of the curriculum content. The specific statements that indicate this are
detailed in Table 15 below.
Table 15: Science content statements – State/Territory forum participant responses
Survey statement
% forum group responses
Strongly
disagree Disagree Agree
Strongly
agree
No
comment
The learning area content clearly
represents the important content that all
young Australians should learn 6% 29% 42% 13% 10%
The placement and sequencing of content
is appropriate at and across all year levels 6% 36% 42% 6% 10%
The content at each year level is
manageable and able to be taught in depth
and within the time available
29% 36% 19% 6% 10%
Recurring themes around the content of the draft science curriculum centred on four issues:
1. Content heavy (SU strand). Forum participants felt that general topics should not be
eliminated, but rather merged with other topics to reduce the amount of content to be
covered. For example: combining matter and energy into other topics; combining water and
renewable energy into other topics; and combining sustainable energy transformations in
Year 6 with renewable energy sources in Year 7. In addition, a number of specific content
areas were identified as reducible, if not expendable:
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 82
Genetics
Geology of ecosystems
Emphasis on Earth and space
Year 7 space and the solar system (already covered in Year 5)
In general, the early years science curriculum was not considered content heavy. However, it
was noted that Year 3 is particularly crowded, and the content would be difficult to fit with a
play-based curriculum. Overall, flexibility is required with the primary science curriculum
considering differences in school resources.
2. Content overlap. While this was not considered an issue within primary years, there were
mixed views around the inclusion of geology and reproduction in the science curriculum. No
conclusive answer was reached as to whether shaping the earth be moved to geography.
There was stronger support for human body systems, growth and reproduction to be moved
to health.
3. Content not adequately contemporary in scope. A lack of focus on new technologies,
emerging science, and 21st century innovation was identified in the state and territory forums.
National forum participants suggested the incorporation of such topics in SHE and the use of
contemporary examples and elaborations (similar to the reference to biotechnology in the
elaborations). It was recognised that this has to be balanced with the resulting need to be up-
to-date with resources for teachers and students, and that by contemporising the curriculum,
it could become dated.
4. Sequencing. National forum participants identified a lack of connection between year levels
and strands, indicating that there is no natural sequence. Specifically, composite classes
were considered an issue with guidance sought on how to approach these classes. There was
strong support for teachers to be allowed to view the curriculum in two-year bands, rather
than specific content for a given year, thus allowing a more flexible delivery. Other specific
recommendations in relation to content/sequencing are presented in Appendix N.
Across the State and Territory forums, the most negative evaluations were around the achievement
standards. The questions with the highest level of disagreement centred on these issues and are
displayed overleaf.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 83
7%6%
42%
45%
7%
26%
48%
19%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Figure 16: Proportion of science forum responses to:
―The achievement standards clearly describe the
expected quality of learning for each year level‖
Figure 17: Proportion of science forum responses
to: ―You could confidently assess student
achievement of these standards‖
Consistent with the findings above, assessment was identified as the most significant issue at the
national science forum. Further clarity, detail, and definition of the achievement standards focused on
a number of issues:
Purpose. This was generally unclear to national forum participants, as they appeared to
summarise the content with no indication of depth or quality required. It was suggested
that the achievement standards be mapped to content descriptors so that they would
accurately represent mandatory content, and describe the characteristics of the students‘
work. Overall, more information is required so that the standards do not become a
checklist of outcomes.
Wording. The language was seen as too open to interpretation (e.g. confusion over how to
gauge ―begins to‖ or ―appreciates‖). Non-specific terms (e.g. ―simple‖) make it difficult to
differentiate between levels. National forum participants expressed that a nationally
consistent curriculum requires the full scale of achievement (A-E) to be defined. To this
end, a matrix or rubric for each year level would be useful, in addition to moderated work
samples.
Usefulness. Assessing SHE was cited as problematic as this strand is not prominent in
the achievement standards. It was also suggested that the achievement standards would
be more useful if they appeared at the beginning of the document, rather than the end.
This would help frame the subject area enabling teachers to see the big picture before
following through with specifics.
The elaborations and work samples were only moderately received across the forums. Similar to the
stated requirements for achievement standards, national forum participants expressed that the role
of elaborations required further clarity, and should provide linkages between strands.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 84
The inclusion of general capabilities in the draft science curriculum received mixed feedback at the
national forum. Participants generally suggested a core focus on literacy, ICT, and numeracy, with
ethical behaviour to be made more explicit in the existing content descriptions and achievement
standards. On the other hand, some participants felt that the general capabilities were adequately
covered. The difficulty in ensuring incorporation of general capabilities lies in how they are to be
assessed. Mapping the conceptual development of the capabilities across all learning areas was
suggested.
Regarding the cross-curriculum dimensions, the majority of forum participants felt that sustainability
was well covered. Less importance was afforded to indigenous perspectives, and a more global
perspective was considered more appropriate than a focus on Asia. It was also noted that teachers
will need more guidance as to how to incorporate the dimension, for example, with the aid of work
samples.
In terms of the online format, 63% of State/Territory forum groups who provided a rating described it
as user-friendly and easy to navigate. Fifty percent, however, thought that all parts of the Australian
Curriculum could be easily accessed on the website.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 85
Feedback from Peak Body submissions
In addition to the key themes identified across the curriculum in Section 5, a small number of specific
issues were raised in Peak Body submissions in relation to the draft science curriculum. These
recurring themes are summarised below. A more detailed summary of Peak Body feedback regarding
the draft science curriculum can be found under each State and Territory in Section 8.
Item Feedback summary Typical quotes
Principles to
underpin the
curriculum
Strengths identified
with the inclusion of
inquiry skills and
scientific thinking, and
SHE
―Science as a Human Endeavour is more detailed
and has higher expectations of students and more
depth than the section in the NT Curriculum. It
connects science and culture in a way that should
engage more students.‖
Curriculum
content:
manageability
Content overcrowding
and linkages between
strands. Specifically
heavy in geological
content
―Some teachers expressed concern regarding the
number of strands in science and how teachers will
be able to teach and assess all of the content.‖
―We are concerned about the seeming lack of
equality between the three strands.‖
―The plethora of geological minutiae throughout the
document contrast with the absence of valued
physics topics.‖
Curriculum
content:
sequencing
Content descriptions
and standards are not
pitched appropriately
across year levels
―There are some strange instances of sequencing,
e.g. evolution in Year 10 before DNA and genetics.‖
Curriculum
content:
general
Content missing around
new sciences, recent
advances and nano-
technology
―Content not adequately contemporary in scope: a
lack of focus on new technologies, emerging
sciences, and 21st century innovation.‖
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 86
Feedback from public submissions
Although the majority of public submissions discussed diverse issues across the curriculum, two
recurring themes were particularly evident relating, specifically, to the draft science curriculum:
1. Content overcrowding. A common theme expressed was that there is too much content in
the draft science curriculum for teachers to be able to cover in sufficient depth. Submissions
particularly highlighted the SU strand as content heavy. There was a general sense that it
would be difficult to spend equal time on the three strands of science because they all vary
so much.
2. Resourcing. There was a general sense that the national science curriculum requires
resources and support that many schools may not have. For example, the primary years
science curriculum indicates a clear need for science labs, which most primary schools do
not have. Smaller schools and regional schools may also not have the facilities and
equipment deemed necessary.
Consultation portal data findings
Feedback from online survey portal detailed a number of general strengths to the national science
curriculum. Most respondents believed that the draft science curriculum represented a broad range
of science content that was essential to developing a scientific mind able to understand scientific
processes and then explain, evaluate, assess and apply the same processes in day-to-day life.
Specific limitations identified in the draft science curriculum are presented below.
Issue Feedback summary Year level focus
Chemistry
The concepts of elements and compounds are
introduced in Year 8 before learning about the
structure of an atom in Year 9 and the periodic table
in Year 10.
The science curriculum needs to be restructured so
that the basic concepts of chemistry are introduced
before the more complex concepts, such as
elements and compounds.
Chemistry is introduced
in Year 8 without the
necessary prior
knowledge.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 87
Issue Feedback summary Year level focus
Evolution
and
creation
The curriculum poses evolution as a fact rather than
as a contentious theory with only partial scientific
support. The Big Bang theory is also presented as
fact, even though debate exists as to the credibility
of this theory.
The science curriculum needs to incorporate a
broader range of theories relating to the origins of
life and the universe.
The origins of the
universe are a
component of the Year
10 science curriculum.
Astronomy
Astronomy is not developed consistently throughout
the science curriculum. There is no meaningful
content on astronomy between Years 7 and 10.
Furthermore, astronomy is not covered in primary
school until Year 5.
The solar system needs consistent coverage across
the science curriculum, as it is an interesting and
engaging subject that captures the imagination of
most students.
Astronomy content is
lacking across all year
levels in the science
curriculum.
Science as
a Human
Endeavour
(SHE)
The SHE content strand is less relevant than the
Science Inquiry Skills (―SIS‖) or Science
Understanding (―SU‖) strands, and will be difficult to
teach in any depth given the large amount of
content in the other strands.
The necessity of the SHE strand and the equal
weighting given to it and the SIS and SU strands
needs to be reviewed. Alternatively, more clarity
needs to be provided as to the depth required for
each of the SHE topics.
The SHE strand is a
major component of the
science curriculum
across all year levels.
Human
reproduction
The concept of human reproduction and growth is
introduced in Year 7 before cell structure in Year 8.
Furthermore, reproduction is usually taught within a
designated health course in later years.
The Year 7 and 8 content on reproduction and cell
structure needs to be switched in order make sure
that students have the necessary prior knowledge
and maturity to undertake a course in reproduction.
Content regarding
human reproduction and
growth is placed in Year
7 in the draft curriculum.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 88
History
Summary of findings
In considering the consolidated stakeholder feedback regarding the draft history curriculum (K-10),
the data reflect strong support for promoting history education and a national curriculum. In
particular, the following key strengths were consistent across all consultation media, specific to the
history curriculum:
Elevating the significance of history education
The early introduction of history into the curriculum and its sustained teaching over the
stages of schooling was regarded by many as a positive, and a key pillar in the national
curriculum.
Historical inquiry focus
The broad inquiry questions for each level were considered clear and succinct, and a vital aid
to helping teachers unpack the content and skills identified for each year level.
Intercultural understanding a key feature
Compared across all learning areas, the history curriculum most clearly promoted
intercultural understanding. Indigenous history and culture, and Asia and Australia‘s
engagement with Asia were also most recognised under this subject.
A number of key challenges and issues were identified across the K-10 draft history curriculum.
Taking into account all of the feedback received, these issues relate to:
Content overcrowding
Concerns were expressed that the history curriculum is too content heavy, particularly in
Years 7 to 10, and that this may detract from the depth and understanding of the range of
topics covered adequately.
Achievement standards unclear and pitched inappropriately
The history achievement standards and their pitch were generally seen as unclear and not
reflecting the content. In addition, consistent feedback on the elaborations described them
as not sufficiently illustrating the content descriptions.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 89
Inclusion of recent history content, indigenous perspectives and global perspectives
A lack of emphasis on contemporary history was identified, particularly around Asian history
and Australia‘s history following World War II (―WWII‖). In addition, a general theme across
the feedback centred on how to recognise indigenous perspectives without the teachings
appearing tokenistic.
Clarity required around “depth studies”
Feedback identified a need for clearer guidelines around the teaching of depth studies.
Submissions indicated a lack of clarity around the purpose of depth studies, the coverage of
content points, and the extent of material to be covered in depth studies.
Online survey findings
In total, 582 individuals provided feedback specific to the history draft curriculum via the online
survey.
Respondents to the online survey indicated a number of strengths for the draft history curriculum
including clear and coherent content descriptions. The survey statements with the highest levels of
agreement focused on the draft structure:
1. The rationale and aims of the learning area(s) provide a clear foundation and direction for the
curriculum
2. The organisation of the learning area(s) provides a coherent view of the key elements and
features of the curriculum
Figures 18 and 19 show the proportion of agreement responses for the two statements above.
15%
63%
16%
6%9%
60%
20%
11%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Figure 18: Proportion of history learning area
responses to: ―The rationale and aims of the learning
area(s) provide a clear foundation and direction for the
curriculum‖
Figure 19: Proportion of history learning area
responses to: ―The organisation of the learning
area(s) provides a coherent view of the key
elements and features of the curriculum‖
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 90
Open-ended feedback from the online survey demonstrated agreement with these statements:
“I feel that the rationale and aims of the curriculum clearly outline what is important about
the teaching of history: that students develop a sense of why Australian society has
developed as it has, and why other cultures have developed differently – and have the right
to do so. It teaches students to be analytical, critical, and hopefully, sensitive thinkers.”
School-based personnel, Tasmania
“Great, well written, and easy to follow.”
School-based personnel, South Australia
Interestingly, 60% of respondents indicated that the draft descriptions cover the important content
for history. This is a relatively low level of agreement compared to the other learning areas.
According to respondents, content should be more inclusive of other civilisations‘ histories and have
wider cultural breadth. Additionally, there was confusion surrounding the definition and weighting of
the Middle Ages.
Open-ended feedback from the online survey provided suggestions regarding content:
“I am concerned that the curriculum does not allow for such subjects as ancient Egypt,
ancient Rome, medieval times, American history, Chinese history or other countries that
kids of this age find fascinating.”
School-based personnel, Northern Territory
“The weighting given to the Middle Ages is too limited confined to one year of study. The
Middle Ages ended around 1450, not in the 18th century. Much more needs to be made of
our cultural roots in Britain/Ireland and on Judeo-Christian heritage. Most Australian history
is European.”
School-based personnel, New South Wales
When considering the draft history content elaborations and achievement standards there was less
agreement across the board with regards to their appropriateness and relevance. In particular:
58% of respondents felt that the draft content elaborations illustrate the content
descriptions sufficiently
57% of respondents felt that the draft content elaborations are relevant and appropriate
illustrations
56% of respondents felt that the draft achievement standards are pitched appropriately
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 91
Open-ended feedback from the online survey elaborated on concerns about the appropriateness of
the content elaborations:
“The elaborations are predictable and limiting. Obviously, some commentators appear to be
having difficulty in understanding exactly what an elaboration is. Maybe we are better
without them.”
Academic, Queensland
“More elaborations for each content description would be helpful. The ones there are very
good, but generally only one for each description.”
School-based personnel, South Australia
Almost half of the respondents (49%) disagreed that the annotated work sample assists to illustrate
and exemplify the achievement standards.
“The work samples should be those that allow students to demonstrate a range of
capabilities and skill levels. The current work sample at Year 6 is one that could be
produced at a lower year level. The work samples should enable teachers to challenge their
students as well as give examples of the types of work/assessments that can be covered at
that level.”
School or curriculum authority personnel, Victoria
In combination, 43% of respondents agreed that the history content descriptions, together with the
achievement standards, provided clarity about the depth of teaching and learning required.
“Teachers identified disconnectedness between the content descriptions and the
achievement standards. In their current format, the achievement standards appear to have
been written in isolation.”
School or curriculum authority personnel, New South Wales
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 92
With regards to general capabilities, the draft history curriculum was highly rated against a number
of capabilities:
i. Literacy (83% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that this was evident)
ii. Intercultural understanding (75%)
iii. Thinking skills (73%)
iv. ICT (71%)
On the other hand, respondents were less confident that the history curriculum content descriptions
and achievement standards covered self management and creativity. Concerning both of these
general capabilities, 50% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed these were evident.
The majority of respondents felt that cross-curriculum material is clearly evident in the history
content descriptions, specifically indigenous history and culture (82% agreement) and Australia‘s
engagement with Asia (81% agreement). Conversely, 50% of respondents felt sustainability issues
are adequately covered.
Online survey statements with relatively low levels of agreement mainly concerned the draft
Australian Curriculum for history catering for diverse student requirements. The specific statements
that indicated this are detailed in Table 16 below.
Table 16: Low agreement survey statements – history curriculum respondents
Survey statement
% response
Strongly
disagree Disagree Agree
Strongly
agree
The draft K-10 Australian Curriculum takes into
account the needs of all students 33% 39% 24% 4%
The draft K-10 Australian Curriculum is not
overcrowded 47% 19% 27% 7%
The draft K-10 Australian Curriculum enables
teachers to cater for developmental diversity 29% 32% 35% 4%
The draft K-10 Australian Curriculum reflects a
world-class curriculum 26% 31% 36% 7%
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 93
Open-ended feedback from the online survey elaborated on the low agreement with the above
statements:
“The history curriculum is overcrowded. There is a lot of content and it will be hard for
teachers to cater for the individual needs of students in their class. Seems to be a one-size-
fits-all curriculum. The standards are challenging but not realistic in the time frames that
are available for primary schools.”
School or curriculum authority personnel, Victoria
“I am not confident that students will find this syllabus world class. You cannot produce a
world-class curriculum at the same time as adopting a testing regime (NAPLAN) that is not
reflected in those high quality education systems (e.g. Finland) that provide excellence and
equity. The removal of a dedicated, integrated social science curriculum and reverting to a
19/20th century model of curriculum organisation (old disciplines of history and
geography) impedes development of world-class curriculum.”
Academic, Queensland
Consultation forum findings
In total, 34 feedback forms were received in State and Territory consultation forums that related,
specifically, to the draft history curriculum. In the follow up national history forum, 86 participants
provided further feedback and suggestions for improvement to the curriculum.
The key findings from the State and Territory forums highlighted strengths around the clarity of the
rationale and aims of the history learning area, with more than 91% of forum groups indicating the
aims were clear and appropriate. In addition, 74% felt that the organisation of the draft history
curriculum provided a coherent view of its key elements and characteristics.
A significant strength was the recognition and establishment of history as an important subject area.
Forum participants appreciated that the history curriculum was being constructed as a national
document. The global perspective of the curriculum and inclusion of history as a discipline from K
onwards were also highlighted as positive steps forward.
The primary issues identified by forum participants related to the manageability, placement, and
sequencing of content. Fifty-eight percent of State/Territory forum participants felt that the history
content represented the important material all young Australians should learn. The questions with the
highest level of disagreement centred on these issues and are displayed overleaf.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 94
9%
38%32%
12%
9%3%
9%
20%
56%
12%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
No Comment
Figure 20: Proportion of history forum responses to:
―The content at each year level is manageable and
able to be taught in depth and within the time
available‖
Figure 21: Proportion of history forum responses to:
―The placement and sequencing of content is
appropriate at and across all year levels‖
As shown in the pie chart above left, 76% of State/Territory forum participants expressed concern that
teaching the history curriculum in its entirety would detract from the depth and quality of
understanding achievable. The content was considered large particularly at Years 7 to 10. A review of
all major topics was suggested in order to refine the topics presented at these levels. In addition, the
inclusion of guidelines for time allocation was recommended as a necessary step. National forum
participants indicated that there was the belief that 80 hours per year would be allocated to the
history curriculum.
Other recurring themes discussed around the history content included:
1. Contemporary history. A lack of emphasis on contemporary history was identified, in
particular, Asian history. According to participants, contemporary history was considered
important as current events exist as a result of past events. Active citizenship is dependent
upon an understanding of what events have lead to the current situation. It was suggested
that contemporary issues could be brought in through current affairs and connecting current
issues with historical origins.
National forum participants felt that the term ―contemporary‖ should be avoided and,
instead, be redefined without European constructs, referred to as ―recent history‖ instead.
The term ―new Australian‖ was also considered inappropriate.
Recent history topics that were identified as important and missing from the curriculum
included:
Australia‘s significant relationship with Indonesia
Migration
Peacekeeping and refugees
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 95
More recent Australian history such as the Northern Territory intervention and how it
relates to post-WWII, e.g. the stolen generation
The rise of China and India
The recognition of histories of Asia in their own right
Post-WWII to present
The cold war
2. The global perspective. Concern was expressed in the State and Territory forums that the
global perspective was not strong enough. There were also mixed opinions on the inclusion of
Asia and Australia‘s engagement with Asia with some participants feeling that the increased
focus was positive, while others believed there was an overemphasis on Asia. Whereas forum
participants agreed that Asia should be included in the curriculum, it was suggested that an
overall concept of global perspective could provide opportunities to address political and
contemporary ideas.
3. Indigenous perspectives. There were mixed opinions concerning the greater emphasis on the
indigenous perspective in the history curriculum. A general theme from feedback discussions
centred on the indigenous perspective as being tokenistic, with the coverage appearing to be
an afterthought and ―tacked‖ onto other topics. According to participants, indigenous
perspectives should permeate the curriculum rather than be isolated to specific areas.
Present perspectives should accompany past perspectives, as an overemphasis on the past
denies the lived experience and the impact of past policies. Forum groups did highlight that
teachers will require professional development and access to resources to teach this content.
Across the State and Territory forum groups, the history achievement standards were generally seen
as not reflecting the content. The specific statements that indicated this are detailed in Table 17
below.
Table 17: Achievement standards statements – history curriculum forum participants
Survey statement
% forum group responses
Strongly
disagree Disagree Agree
Strongly
agree
No
comment
The achievement standards clearly
describe the expected quality of learning
for each year level 18% 29% 29% 9% 15%
The achievement standards at each year
level represents the learning you would
expect, having taught the content for that
year
9% 26% 41% 12% 12%
You could confidently assess student
achievement of these standards 29% 29% 21% 9% 12%
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 96
A number of suggestions were put forward at the national forum in focusing on improving the
relevance and clarity of the achievement standards and work samples:
There was overwhelming support for the achievement standards to appear at the
beginning of the document, rather than the end. This would help frame the subject area
and enable teachers to see the direction for that year
Standards could be dot-pointed and written in a more straightforward style to assist with
their clarity
It was suggested that the history curriculum be more focused on concepts, rather than
content. Achievement standards reflecting concepts would better lend themselves to
comprehensively assessing students‘ learning
Work samples were cited as a necessary inclusion, however, participants indicated that
these need to be multi-modal and contain explicit examples of A-E standards
In terms of the online format, 69% of State/Territory forum groups who provided a rating described it
as user-friendly and easy to navigate. A further 66% thought that all parts of the Australian Curriculum
can be easily accessed on the website.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 97
Feedback from Peak Body submissions
In addition to the key themes identified across the curriculum in Section 5, a small number of specific
issues were raised in Peak Body submissions in relation to the draft history curriculum. These
recurring themes are summarised below. A more detailed summary of Peak Body feedback regarding
the draft history curriculum can be found under each State and Territory in Section 8.
Item Feedback summary Typical quotes
Curriculum
content:
manageability
Content overcrowding
―While it would be commendable to cover
everything academics thought was necessary for
students to know, this is not practical given the
time, varied needs, and abilities of students.‖
―Teachers were clear in their feedback that too
much content had been included in the draft
curriculum, particularly in history and science.‖
Curriculum
content:
general
Specific historical
content not covered
adequately or
misplaced across year
levels
―There is some concern that the global perspective
is not strong enough.‖
―It relegates the entire topics of WWII to the
Holocaust and the atomic bomb to a ‗mere‘
aftermath or consequence of WWII.‖
‖It has been suggested that the question of ‘what is
history?‘ should be introduced earlier than Year 7.‖
Curriculum
content:
general
Depth studies lack
clarity
―There are too many depth studies. There is an
unresolved lack of clarity between the coverage of
content points and the provision of depth in the
depth studies.‖
―There is a lack of clarity around what is meant by
‗depth study‘. A definition should be developed and
agreed upon.‖
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 98
Feedback from public submissions
Although the majority of public submissions discussed diverse issues across the curriculum, three
recurring themes were particularly evident relating specifically to the draft history curriculum:
1. Recent history. It was frequently suggested that the current curriculum could be improved by
including a larger focus on contemporary themes and concepts in history. Content relating to
the 21st century and more recent historical issues was seen as beneficial to student learning.
2. Content overcrowding. History was considered to be too content heavy, particularly in Years 7
to 10. Respondents felt that this would lead to a more superficial coverage of subjects and, in
effect, would turn students away from senior year history studies.
3. A diverse subject area. A number of respondents expressed that most of the content was
about social studies or culture, thus, incorporating a range of material across the fields of
geography, sociology, psychology, and anthropology. The name ―history‖ was not seen as
reflecting the content of the learning area and either a more appropriate word be used, or the
content be further refined.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 99
Consultation portal data findings
Feedback from online survey portal detailed a number of general strengths to the national history
curriculum. Overall, respondents were pleased to see that history had been given such a prominent
role in the national curriculum. It was thought that the curriculum showed a logical progression
through history, that will aid in teaching children about the past in order to prepare them for the
future. The focus on both Australian and world history was considered a positive as it provides
students with an enriched appreciation for other nations. Additionally, the inquiry questions for each
level were considered clear and succinct, and a vital aid to helping teachers unpack the content and
skills identified for each year level.
Specific limitations identified in the draft history curriculum are presented below.
Issue Feedback summary Year level focus
Ethics and
social
values
Despite ethical behaviour being designated as a
general capability, the national curriculum does not
incorporate important ethical and social values such
as democracy, equity, justice, honesty, and respect.
The history curriculum needs to incorporate the
teaching of ethical and social values in order to help
students understand their role in society.
Furthermore, history should focus on developing
emotional, social, and interpersonal skills.
A consideration of
ethical and social values
are inconsistent or
totally absent across all
year levels.
Depth
studies
Lack of clarity as to what a depth study is and how
many are to be done in a year within the history
syllabus. The proposed number of depth studies to
be undertaken in a year is unrealistic.
Clearer guidelines for the teaching of depth studies
need to be provided. Furthermore, teachers need to
be given the opportunity to tailor the number of
depth studies and content to be covered to the
needs and ability of their students.
Year 3 to 6 students are
required to undertake
two depth studies per
year, while Year 7 to 10
students are required to
complete four depth
studies per year.
European
history
The draft curriculum is largely eurocentric in view
and needs to accommodate a thorough examination
of other cultures and beliefs that encompass more
than just a consideration of their impact on
Australia.
A balanced approach to history, which
accommodates various cultural perspectives, in
keeping with the varied cultural backgrounds of the
Australian school population is required.
The Year 7 to 10
curriculum primarily
emphasises European
history. However, there
is a lack of European
history in the primary
curriculum, which
focuses primarily on
Australian history.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 100
Issue Feedback summary Year level focus
ANZAC Day
Reference made to ANZAC Day only in Years 2 and
3. The significance of this date and its connection to
the events at Gallipoli are not explored at any other
point. This is a cause for concern given the decrease
in appreciation for the significance of ANZAC Day.
The curriculum needs to incorporate details about
the events commemorated by ANZAC Day in order to
ensure that the significance of this day is not lost.
ANZAC Day is explored in
Year 3 and not revisited
in later years.
Local
history and
contexts
Too prescriptive and does not allow the flexibility to
incorporate local history topics.
The history curriculum needs to be flexible enough
to provide opportunities to explore local history. This
is particularly important for students living in areas
of historical significance, such as students living in
or near aboriginal communities.
Local heritage is a part
of the Year 2 content,
but is not revisited in
later years.
WWI and
WWII
Detail lacking about the end of WWI, including the
signing of the Treaty of Versailles. Furthermore,
WWII cannot be meaningfully explored as an
extension of WWI, as they commence following
differing circumstances.
WWI should be explored in the context of
nationhood in Year 9 in order to undertake a
thorough examination of the events immediately
preceding and following WWI, while WWII should be
taught separately in Year 10.
WWI and WWII are
currently taught in Year
10 as part of the content
on 20th century history.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 101
7. Consultation Findings – Stage of Schooling
Years K-2
Online survey findings
In total, 103 individuals provided feedback specific to the K-2 draft curriculum via the online survey.
Respondents to the online survey indicated a number of strengths of the draft K-2 curriculum across
all learning areas. Overall the majority of respondents felt that the rationale and aims across learning
areas provided a clear foundation and direction of the curriculum. Eighty-five percent of respondents
agreed with this survey statement. In addition, 80% of respondents indicated that the draft content
descriptions cover the important K-2 content across learning areas. Indeed, the survey statements
with relatively high levels of agreement were centred on content coverage and content descriptions,
specifically:
1. The draft content descriptions are clear and unambiguous (79% agreement)
2. The draft content descriptions are sequenced appropriately (77% agreement)
20%
59%
18%
3%
17%
60%
19%
4%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Figure 22: Proportion of K-2 survey responses to:
―The draft content descriptions are clear and
unambiguous‖
Figure 23: Proportion of K-2 survey responses to:
―The draft content descriptions are sequenced
appropriately‖
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 102
Respondents noted that integrated and play-based learning was most appropriate for K students.
“The importance of play-based learning at a kindergarten level is essential and should be
articulated.”
School-based personnel, Western Australia
“There is no place in the curriculum recognising play as the best way for children to learn in
the early years. There is no mention of self concept, a key area of learning for four-to-six-
year olds. There is no mention of children needing to learn through exploration, discovery,
and first-hand experience. Learning should be integrated in the early years and not
separated into learning areas”
School-based personnel, Western Australia
In addition, the draft content elaborations were evaluated favourably:
1. The draft content elaborations illustrate the content descriptions effectively (80% agreement)
2. The draft content elaborations illustrate the content descriptions sufficiently (78%
agreement)
14%
66%
15%
5%
13%
65%
19%
3%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Figure 24: Proportion of K-2 survey responses
to: ―The draft content elaborations illustrate the
content descriptions effectively‖
Figure 25: Proportion of K-2 survey responses
to: ―The draft content elaborations illustrate
the content descriptions sufficiently
With regards to the draft achievement standards for K—2 across the learning areas, there was relative
satisfaction around their clarity, coherence and sequencing. For each of these issues, greater than
70% of respondents agreed that the standards were appropriate. Half of the respondents agreed that
the annotated work samples assist to illustrate and exemplify the achievement standards.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 103
“The status of the samples is unclear If they are going to be standardised/moderated, this
needs to be clearly articulated.”
School-based personnel, Victoria
In combination, 60% of respondents agreed that the K-2 content descriptions together with the
achievement standards provide clarity about the depth of teaching and learning required.
With regards to general capabilities, respondents indicated that the following capabilities were clearly
present in the K-2 curriculum content descriptions and achievement standards:
i. Literacy (81% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that this was evident)
ii. ICT (77%)
iii. Thinking skills (76%)
iv. Numeracy (76%)
Self management, ethical behaviour, and social competence were rated as less evident in the K2
curriculum, however, in response to this, their relevance to young learners was also questioned.
Online survey statements with relatively low levels of agreement focused on two issues:
1. The incorporation of cross-curriculum dimensions in the draft K-2 Australian Curriculum,
particularly Asia and Australia‘s engagement with Asia
2. The K-2 curriculum catering for diverse student requirements. The specific statements that
highlight this issue are detailed in Table 18 below
Table18: Low agreement survey statements – K-2 curriculum respondents
Survey statement
% response
Strongly
disagree Disagree Agree
Strongly
agree
The draft K-10 Australian Curriculum takes into
account the needs of all students 17% 40% 41% 2%
The draft K-10 Australian Curriculum enables
teachers to cater for development diversity 18% 30% 51% 1%
The draft K-10 Australian Curriculum reflects a
world-class curriculum 14% 30% 52% 4%
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 104
Open-ended feedback from the online survey detailed respondents‘ disagreement with the above
statements:
“A priority area for improvement is to include information relating to a curriculum for
students with disabilities. The draft K-10 Australian curriculum does not take into account
the needs of all students and, hence, does not assist me to cater for the developmental
diversity of the students I currently teach.”
School-based personnel, Queensland
“The Australian curriculum will be in breach of both Commonwealth and State Disability
Acts, which clearly state 'to eliminate, as far as possible, discrimination against persons on
the ground of disability in the area of education and training,' in the absence of our opening
statement. The curriculum must provide course content and achievement standards
designed for those students who cannot access the regular content.”
School-based personnel, Victoria
Consultation forum findings
In total, 31 stage of schooling forms were received in state and territory consultation forums that
related specifically to the K-2 curriculum.
The key finding from the State and Territory forums is the perceived strength around the inclusion of
local needs and contexts in the K-2 Australian Curriculum. Eighty-four percent of forum groups
indicated that this was clearly present in the document.
Generally, forum participants were critical of a number of aspects within the K-2 draft curriculum. The
issue that generated the least positive evaluation was around the curriculum being inclusive of the
range of learners. Sixty-five percent of forum groups expressed that the curriculum was inadequate in
this regard (see Figure 26 overleaf).
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 105
0%
22%
42%
23%
13%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
No Comment
Figure 26: Proportion of K-2 forum
responses to: ―The curriculum is inclusive
of the range of learners‖
Open-ended feedback from the State and Territory forums noted the lack of inclusivity of the
Australian Curriculum:
“The way it is written does not take account of students with special needs, at risk, ESL or
developmentally not ready at this stage.”
Western Australia
Other issues identified relate to inconsistent language and terminology in the K-2 curriculum across
learning areas and the lack of contemporary content. In addition, participants thought the general
capabilities and cross-curriculum dimensions were not sufficiently covered. The specific statements
that highlighted these issues are detailed in Table 19 below.
Table 19: Low agreement statements – K-2 forum participants
Survey statement
% forum group responses
Strongly
disagree Disagree Agree
Strongly
agree
No
comment
There is coherence and consistency in the
curriculum across learning areas 3% 48% 36% 0% 13%
The curriculum incorporates the necessary
learning for a 21st century curriculum 13% 48% 36% 0% 3%
The general capabilities are adequately
addressed 10% 42% 23% 0% 26%
The cross-curriculum dimensions are
adequately addressed 23% 42% 23% 3% 10%
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 106
Open-ended feedback from the State and Territory forums elaborated on the statements above:
“While we believe that it incorporates the necessary learning for a 21st century curriculum,
we believe that this could be taken at face value and the general capabilities may be
overlooked. We don‟t believe that global perspectives are evident enough.”
South Australia
“They [general capabilities] appear to be hidden. Teachers should not have to search for this
information. It needs to be there up front. Appears very vague. Teachers may skip these and
go straight to the content.”
Australian Capital Territory
In terms of making appropriate linkages between early childhood learning and primary education,
23% of respondents agreed that the K-2 curriculum adequately takes into account key transition
points.
Open-ended feedback from the State and Territory forums demonstrated particular concern with the
lack of linkages to the Early Years Learning Framework and knowledge children bring to school:
“The skills and capabilities that children bring to school in the early years are not touched
on.”
Northern Territory
“In some areas, jumps in skills not sequenced in terms of development and „spiralling
curriculum‟. Other areas were addressed initially and then not revisited for a number of
years.”
New South Wales
“Alignment or mention of the Early Years Learning Framework is not there.”
South Australia
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 107
In terms of the online format, the following key findings are noted from the K-2 forums:
71% of forum groups who provided a rating described the online format as user friendly and
easy to navigate
64% felt that the online format addressed issues of accessibility and inclusivity for teachers
across Australia
26% thought that all parts of the Australian Curriculum could be easily accessed on the
website. Participants indicated that some of the barriers for teachers in utilising the online
format include access availability and teacher skill
Open-ended feedback from the State and Territory forums suggested the following barriers for using
the online format:
“Lack of broadband for remote, rural, and some city schools.”
Western Australia
“Computer literacy skills are of a great range.”
Western Australia
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 108
Years 3-6
Online survey findings
In total, 114 individuals provided feedback specific to the 3-6 draft curriculum via the online survey.
Respondents to the online survey indicated a number of strengths of the draft 3-6 curriculum across
all learning areas, including clear and coherent content descriptions and content elaborations that
both effectively and sufficiently illustrate these descriptions. For each of these areas, greater than
75% of respondents agreed that there was sufficient clarity and coverage. Specific to the overall 3-6
curriculum, the survey statements with the highest levels of agreement were centred on structure:
1. The rationale and aims of the learning area(s) provide a clear foundation and direction for the
curriculum
2. The organisation of the learning area(s) provides a coherent view of the key elements and
features of the curriculum
Figures 27 and 28 show the proportion of agreement responses for the two statements above.
11%
77%
10%
2%
12%
70%
11%
7%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Figure 27: Proportion of 3-6 survey responses to: ―The
Rationale and Aims of the learning area(s) provide a
clear foundation and direction for the curriculum‖
Figure 28: Proportion of 3-6 survey responses to:
―The organisation of the learning area(s) provides a
coherent view of the key elements and features of
the curriculum‖
Open-ended feedback from the online survey supported these positive evaluations of the rationale
and aims:
“It is crucial to understand the direction and aims of each subject area and the rationale
and aims provide a good knowledge of how to provide continuity in the curriculum.”
School-based personnel, Tasmania
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 109
Further strengths of the 3-6 curriculum were around the clarity and relevance of the draft content
elaborations. Respondents felt that the elaborations sufficiently and effectively illustrated the content
descriptions (77% of respondents agreed). There was also agreement across respondents regarding
the extent to which the draft content descriptions and achievement standards were sufficiently
challenging for students at each year level:
80% of respondents indicated that the draft 3-6 achievement standards across all
learning areas were clear and unambiguous
80% of respondents indicated that the draft 3-6 achievement standards were clearly
articulated across year levels
76% of respondents indicated that the draft 3-6 achievement standards were sequenced
appropriately
Just over half of the respondents (58%) agreed that the annotated work sample assists to illustrate
and exemplify the Year 3-6 achievement standards.
However, open-ended feedback from the online survey indicated they could be improved:
“There needs to be more of these as this will allow teachers to assess to a more consistent
standard across schools.”
School-based personnel, South Australia
“Better notes from the teachers regarding whether the student achieved grade level and
what would have gained a better/worse mark”
School-based personnel, Tasmania
In combination, 70% of respondents agreed that the 3-6 content descriptions together with the
achievement standards provide clarity about the depth of teaching and learning required. From an
overall perspective, the majority view was that the draft curriculum provides coherence and continuity
across the stages of schooling (3-6).
With regards to general capabilities, the draft 3-6 curriculum was moderately rated against a number
of capabilities:
i. Numeracy (76% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that this was evident)
ii. Literacy (74%)
iii. Thinking skills (71%)
On the other hand, respondents were less confident that the overall 3-6 curriculum content
descriptions and achievement standards covered ethical behaviour, self management, and teamwork.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 110
Forty-eight percent of respondents believed that ethical behaviour was present. Concerning self
management and teamwork, 52% of respondents agreed that these were evident.
Online survey statements with relatively low levels of agreement focused on two issues:
1. The incorporation of cross-curriculum dimensions in the draft 3-6 Australian Curriculum. Fifty-
one percent of survey respondents felt that Asia and Australia‘s engagement with Asia was
adequately covered. Fifty-three percent indicated that Indigenous history and culture, and a
commitment to sustainability were clearly evident.
2. The 3-6 curriculum catering for diverse student requirements. The specific statements that
highlighted this issue are detailed in Table 20 below.
Table 20: Low agreement survey statements – 3-6 curriculum respondents
Survey statement
% response
Strongly
disagree Disagree Agree
Strongly
agree
The draft Australian Curriculum takes into account
the needs of all students 17% 46% 34% 3%
The draft Australian Curriculum enables teachers to
cater for development diversity 12% 41% 42% 5%
The draft Australian Curriculum takes into account
available evidence about the nature of the learner 9% 38% 49% 4%
The draft Australian Curriculum reflects a world-
class curriculum 6% 29% 55% 9%
Open-ended feedback from the online survey elaborated on the statements above:
“The curriculum appears crowded and does not offer an easy solution to those mixed
classes. I understand that the teaching needs to be elevated above the strand points, but
still query the capacity to fulfil the component of 'teaching' a mixed class all that is stated in
the curriculum.”
School-based personnel, Tasmania
“Gifted students and students with disabilities are not catered for. ICT is not specific
enough. It feels tacked on.”
School-based personnel, Tasmania
“There needs to be more evidence of a continuum of skills across each area.”
School-based personnel, New South Wales
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 111
Consultation forum findings
In total, 38 stage of schooling forms were received in State and Territory consultation forums that
related specifically to the 3-6 curriculum.
Generally, forum participants were critical of many of the issues raised in the stage of schooling
feedback form relating, specifically, to the 3-6 draft curriculum. The issue with the highest level of
agreement across forum groups was the recognition of local needs and contexts in the Australian
Curriculum (53% of groups indicated that these were evident).
The issue that generated the least positive evaluation was around the curriculum being inclusive of
the range of learners. Sixty-six percent of forum groups expressed that the curriculum was inadequate
in this regard (see Figure 29 below).
0%
18%
26%40%
16%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
No Comment
Figure 29: Proportion of 3-6 forum
responses to: ―The curriculum is inclusive
of the range of learners‖
Open-ended feedback from the State and Territory forums elaborated on the lack of inclusivity of the
Australian Curriculum:
“Standards don‟t take account of remote school indigenous students, ESL students,
disabled students.”
Western Australia
“Doesn‟t recognise indigenous kids. There‟s no way you can make this work. Assumes kids
are going to be regular attendees. Having first four hours of day in English is pushing
aboriginal kids away.”
Northern Territory
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 112
Other issues identified relate to inconsistent language and terminology in the 3-6 curriculum across
learning areas and insufficient future-oriented content. In addition, participants indicated that the
general capabilities and cross-curriculum dimensions were not sufficiently covered. The specific
statements that highlighted these issues are detailed in Table 21 below.
Table 21: Low agreement statements – 3-6 forum participants
Survey statement
% forum group responses
Strongly
disagree Disagree Agree
Strongly
agree
No
comment
There is coherence and consistency in the
curriculum across learning areas 13% 34% 29% 0% 24%
The curriculum incorporates the necessary
learning for a 21st century curriculum 13% 37% 26% 5% 19%
The general capabilities are adequately
addressed 11% 34% 34% 5% 16%
The cross-curriculum dimensions are
adequately addressed 13% 40% 29% 0% 18%
Open-ended feedback from the State and Territory forums elaborated on the negative evaluations of
the statements above:
“Writers need to be more in touch with the latest technologies and trends – does not
incorporate technology revolution. The curriculum is too traditional and out of touch from
the real world of 21st century students.”
New South Wales
“Teachers will not necessarily see all of the GCs overtly. They have to be searched for.”
New South Wales
“Concern that these [cross-curriculum dimensions] may be seen as tokens being they are
teased out not embedded. Varying degrees of explanation across the subjects means the
three look vastly different in each of the subjects, hence, they need work to ensure each
subject/learning area sees them as equal and valid.”
Western Australia
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 113
In terms of making appropriate linkages between early childhood learning, and primary and secondary
education, 18% of respondents agreed that the 3-6 curriculum adequately takes into account key
transition points.
“Scope and sequence only tracks from 4-6 and there is a large leap in content and
specialisation in Year 7.”
Western Australia
“Year 6 is isolated from the learning that precedes and proceeds the grade. There is no
continuity. Challenge jumps from a lot from primary to secondary.”
New South Wales
In terms of the online format, the following key findings are noted from the 3-6 forums:
89% of forum groups who provided a rating described the online format as user friendly and
easy to navigate
77% felt that the online format addresses issues of accessibility and inclusivity for teachers
across Australia
41% thought that all parts of the Australian Curriculum can be easily accessed on the
website. Participants indicated that some of the barriers for teachers in utilising the online
format include system failures and access issues.
Open-ended feedback from the State and Territory forums suggested the following barriers for using
the online format:
“Being solely technology based, there is a problem if the system fails. Regional and remote
schools are more affected.”
Western Australia
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 114
Years 7-10
Online survey findings
In total, 959 individuals provided feedback specific to the 7-10 draft curriculum via the online survey.
Respondents to the online survey indicated that the strengths of the draft 7-10 curriculum across all
learning areas are in its underpinning rationale and aims and general structure of the curriculum.
Across the 7-10 curriculum the survey statements with the highest levels of agreement were:
1. The rationale and aims of the learning area(s) provide a clear foundation and direction for the
curriculum
2. The organisation of the learning area(s) provides a coherent view of the key elements and
features on the curriculum
Figures 30 and 31 show the proportion of agreement responses for the two statements above.
11%
62%
19%
8% 10%
57%
21%
12%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Figure 30: Proportion of 7-10 survey responses to:
―The rationale and aims of the learning area(s) provide
a clear foundation and direction for the curriculum‖
Figure 31: Proportion of 7-10 survey responses to:
―The organisation of the learning area(s) provides a
coherent view of the key elements and features of
the curriculum‖
Relative to the other stages of schooling, 7-10 survey respondents were more critical of the content
descriptions, elaborations and achievement standards. While the draft 7-10 content descriptions
were generally seen as clear and coherent, 52% of respondents felt that they were pitched
appropriately. Regarding the elaborations, respondents indicated that further clarity and relevance is
required. Similarly, 44% indicated that the achievement standards could be less ambiguous and
explain in more understandable language what students are expected to learn. Forty-nine percent
believed that these standards were sufficiently challenging for students across 7-10.
Overall, 40% of respondents agreed that the 7-10 content descriptions together with the achievement
standards provide clarity about the depth of teaching and learning required.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 115
Open-ended feedback from the online survey elaborated on concerns regarding the clarity of required
teaching and learning:
“Descriptions are far too vague and open to widely differing interpretation. Standards are a
wish list, not realistic.”
School-based personnel, New South Wales
“The achievement standards do not seem to marry with the content descriptions and, thus,
the reporting and assessment process will be disparate.”
School-based personnel, New South Wales
With regards to general capabilities, the draft 7-10 curriculum was moderately rated against a
number of capabilities:
i. Literacy (74% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that this was evident)
ii. ICT (71%)
iii. Thinking skills (69%)
On the other hand, respondents were less confident that the overall 7-10 curriculum content
descriptions and achievement standards covered self management and social competence. Forty-
seven percent of respondents believed that these capabilities were present in the materials.
Particular areas of concern identified in the online survey centred on perceptions that the 7-10
curriculum is not at a world-class standard. Participants tended to disagree or strongly disagree with
all of the statements in this category. Specific to the overall 7-10 curriculum, the survey statements
with the lowest levels of agreement were around diverse student needs and the content heavy
syllabus:
1. The draft Australian Curriculum takes into account the needs of all students
2. The draft Australian Curriculum is not overcrowded
Figures 32 and 33 show the proportion of agreement responses for the two statements above.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 116
3%
20%
40%
37%
5%
23%
28%
44%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Figure 32: Proportion of 7-10 survey responses to:
―The draft curriculum takes into account the needs of
all students‖
Figure 33: Proportion of 7-10 survey responses to:
―The draft curriculum is not overcrowded‖
Other survey statements that were rated particularly low are presented in Table 22 below.
Table 22: Low agreement survey statements – 7-10 curriculum respondents
Survey statement
% response
Strongly
disagree Disagree Agree
Strongly
agree
The draft Australian Curriculum enables
teachers to cater for development diversity 30% 41% 26% 3%
The draft Australian Curriculum takes into
account available evidence about the nature of
the learner 28% 37% 32% 3%
The draft Australian Curriculum enables the
pursuit of in-depth teaching and learning 27% 27% 32% 3%
The draft Australian Curriculum reflects a world-
class curriculum 28% 31% 37% 4%
Open-ended feedback from the online survey elaborated on the reasons for disagreement with the
above statements:
“I see a lot of students in my classes struggle with the work currently. This draft is
advocating a step up in terms of level of difficulty of concepts, and the number of topics per
year level means it's still a rush to get it all in, with little opportunity to take time to form
deeper understandings. High standards are fine, but we need to be careful we're not
setting a large proportion of our students up for failure.”
School-based personnel, Queensland
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 117
“I am concerned to note that the proposed curriculum does not recognise the existence
gifted children or their needs. There is also no mention made in the proposed curriculum of
any suitable strategies that are crucial in order to provide these students with an education
which meets their requirements. These gifted students have specific characteristics which
means that they have specific educational requirements.”
Parent, New South Wales
“This is not a student-centred curriculum. While the intent is to raise the bar, the effect will
be to create a conformist curriculum that does not provide opportunities for deep
questions, metacognition about learning or differentiated approaches.”
School-based personnel, Queensland
Consultation forum findings
In total, 56 stage of schooling forms were received in State and Territory consultation forums that
related specifically to the 7-10 curriculum.
Generally, forum participants were very critical of many of the issues raised in the stage of schooling
feedback form relating specifically to the 7-10 draft curriculum. The issue with the highest level of
agreement across forum groups was the recognition of local needs and contexts in the Australian
Curriculum (61% of groups indicated that these were evident).
The issue that generated the least positive evaluation was around the curriculum being inclusive of
the range of learners. Eighty-one percent of forum groups expressed that the curriculum was
inadequate in this regard (see Figure 34 below).
0%
5%
27%
54%
14%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
No Comment
Figure 34: Proportion of 7-10 forum
responses to: ―The curriculum is inclusive
of the range of learners‖
Open-ended feedback from the State and Territory forums elaborated on the lack of inclusivity of the
Australian Curriculum included:
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 118
“In all four areas, content/concepts seem to be pitched above the realistic cognitive level of
students in particular years.”
Western Australia
“Implementing this curriculum within the next six months will lead to automatic non-
inclusion because it lacks direction about how to work with students below the expected
achievement level. Much discussion and general unhappiness.”
Australian Capital Territory
Other issues identified relate to inadequate coverage of contemporary/future-oriented content, the
general capabilities and cross-curriculum dimensions in the 7-10 draft curriculum. The specific
statements that highlighted these issues are detailed in Table 23 below.
Table 23: Low agreement statements – 7-10 forum participants
Survey statement
% forum group responses
Strongly
disagree Disagree Agree
Strongly
agree
No
comment
The curriculum incorporates the necessary
learning for a 21st century curriculum 5% 54% 27% 0% 14%
The general capabilities are adequately
addressed 20% 46% 19% 2% 13%
The cross-curriculum dimensions are
adequately addressed 16% 48% 23% 0% 13%
Open-ended feedback from the State and Territory forums elaborated on the negative evaluations of
the statements above:
“Global communication issues are not really addressed in terms of seeing students in
Australian classrooms also as global participants. The answer to this question is a matter of
emphasis. The focus towards the future could be sharper, with more examples. The
curriculum is conservative (not as a criticism) in its focus on separate disciplines, allowing
for interdisciplinary connections only through capabilities.”
Australian Capital Territory
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 119
“Would need some idea of the sequence of development of these capabilities to help
understand to incorporate these into a program.”
Western Australia
“Indigenous and Asia are tokenistically noted in science, English, and maths. Problem
understanding where the cross-curricular dimensions can be made in particular learning
areas.”
Western Australia
In terms of making appropriate linkages between primary and secondary education, 23% of
respondents agreed that the 7-10 curriculum adequately takes into account key transition points.
Open-ended feedback from the State and Territory forums detailed concerns regarding transition
points:
“There needs to be more „transition preparation‟ for those students who might be preparing
for work, as they leave year 10. Need to make a link between the general capabilities and
the employability skills.”
New South Wales
“No mention of key transition points, only mentions year levels. Possibly difficult Year 7 to
Year 8 in those schools that start high school in Year 8.”
Australian Capital Territory
In terms of the online format, the following key findings are noted from the 7-10 forums:
67% of forum groups who provided a rating described the online format as user-friendly and
easy to navigate
67% felt that the online format addressed issues of accessibility and inclusivity for teachers
across Australia
53% felt all parts of the Australian Curriculum could be easily accessed on the website.
Participants indicated that some of the barriers for teachers in utilising the online format
include network and access issues, as well as internet skills.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 120
Open-ended feedback from the State and Territory forums suggested the following barriers for using
the online format:
“Barriers include: registration; network collapsing; equity of access; can‟t navigate;
teachers will not carry their laptop to classroom every day to access syllabus – despite the
DER.”
New South Wales
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 121
8. Consultation Findings – State/Territory
This section highlights the key State and Territory-based curriculum issues that were identified across
the draft national curriculum consultation process. The majority of the feedback received from both
individuals and groups was consistent across States and Territories and aligns with the findings
detailed in Section 5 of this report, Consultation Findings – Across the Curriculum. Not to repeat the
key findings mentioned earlier, unique feedback from individual States or Territories is detailed here
with a focus on responses from the online survey and the consultation forums.
Australian Capital Territory (ACT)
The feedback from online survey ACT respondents was generally aligned with the feedback from other
states. Only one issue was identified as unique to the ACT feedback:
73% of ACT respondents agreed that indigenous history and culture is clearly evident in
the draft content descriptions (compared to an average 60% across the other states). This
was the highest proportion of positive feedback for this issue.
The main concern expressed in the ACT consultation forums was the overly prescriptive nature of
content in comparison with current ACT curriculum. This is of particular concern in relation to the
allocation of content to year levels. The ACT curriculum, in comparison, includes strong statements
about teaching and learning.
Furthermore, a preference for the Every Chance to Learn (―ECTL‖) framework was evident. Forum
participants favoured ECTL as it lists its curriculum in bands of development with an inquiry focus. The
draft national curriculum, on the other hand, is written in year levels with a strong content focus.
An overview of the ACT response to the draft K-10 Australian Curriculum, prepared by the ACT
Department of Education and Training, is presented overleaf.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 122
K-10 Draft Australian Curriculum SUBMISSION
ACT Department of Education and Training
English
The terminology of the three strands in the draft Australian Curriculum in ―language‖,
―literature‖ and ―literacy‖, was not reflected in the language of the description of the
achievement standards in the Australian Curriculum, which have the headings ―listening‖,
―speaking‖, ―reading‖, and ―writing‖. While both content descriptions are valid and useful, their
relationship to each other needs to be made more explicit.
Both curricula agree that the conventions of language need to be understood and taught. The
term ―grammar‖ is loosely defined in the ACARA glossary. As many different grammars abound,
it is necessary to define grammar more clearly: what kind of grammar? To what level of detail?
E.g. Should it be Latinate terms (verb, adjective, conjunction, etc) or more functional
terminology (action words, connectors, describing words)?
English is a curriculum that can be variously interpreted from the intended to the enacted
expressions of this learning area. There are four ElAs in the ACT curriculum framework, one
each in listening and speaking, reading, writing, and critical interpretation and creation of text.
The focus in the draft English curriculum appears disproportionately centred around the
production of written work, and a rebalancing of the listening, speaking and critical
interpretation of texts with writing will be helpful in aligning how English is intended with how
accurately it is taught.
The question of critical reading and interpretation of texts was felt to be under-represented in
the draft English document. In Every Chance To Learn, the student critically interprets and
creates texts is a discrete Essential Learning Achievement, where as in the draft English
curriculum the notion of critical literacy, or interrogating the text is not present.
Recent curricula acknowledge the shift in how appreciation of texts is to occur, from
recognising more traditional literary forms, to critical literacy and post-modern notions of
examining gender and power in a non-literary context of cultural studies. The theoretical
approach in critical literacy or cultural studies requires further clarification.
The broader notion of texts in the English curriculum to include multi-modal text forms is
welcomed because this more closely mirrors life experiences of students in a digital age.
Mathematics
While year contents were not always aligned, it was found that mathematics itself is very similar
across both documents.
Statistics and probability assumes much greater prominence in the draft mathematics
curriculum than in ECTL. This concerns teachers in the ACT because of the time needed to get
through teaching this content.
The major issue is one of content alignment to age levels. In particular, the levels of abstraction
in algebra in Years 4, 5 and 6, were shown to be higher in the draft mathematics document
than in ECTL. The ACT expresses some concern regarding the readiness of upper-primary
students to deal with the abstract nature of algebra as proposed by the draft and suggests it
may be better placed in lower-secondary years.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 123
Science
There appears to be too much content in the draft science curriculum, which may compromise
teachers' capacity to address both scientific inquiry and scientific understanding. Re-balancing
content against skills and understanding will rectify this curriculum.
Science as a human endeavour is more detailed in the draft science curriculum and is
welcomed by teachers. While already taught to some extent in ACT schools, the existence of
this strand is stronger in the draft science curriculum than in ECTL. The opportunity to study
scientists and their break-through moments of discovery is also an innovative dimension of the
draft science curriculum and although present in ECTL, this aspect of curriculum has been well
described and positioned in the draft science curriculum.
While new content like oceanography will require resourcing, topics such as climate change,
water and energy, are welcome as it will invigorate science and make it more significant and
relevant as a discipline in its own right.
The student acts for an environmentally sustainable future is an ELA in the ACT curriculum
framework that allows the topic of sustainability to be taught by both science teachers as well
as teachers of the humanities. Having sustainability as a curriculum dimension in the draft
Australian Curriculum is welcomed because it meets the expectation that sustainability can be
addressed by both science teachers, as well as by teachers from other learning areas.
History
There is too much content in the draft history curriculum. In the ACT, the focus is more on
development of the skills of historical inquiry and understanding, rather than the accumulation
of facts.
In ECTL, there are four Essential Learning Achievements covering the learning area of social
sciences. In the ACT, history is not taught as a subject, but as part of social sciences.
While the study of ancient and medieval history is present in both curricula, the content of
these topics in the draft history curriculum is disproportionately large. Consideration should be
given to lessen the mandatory content in order to further the development of historical skills
and understandings.
The balance of nationally-required content and locally optional content may be seen in the
relationship between content and elaborations, but needs to be made more explicit.
The topic of Aboriginal Australia is expressed in the EM. The student learns about Australians
and Australia and spans all ages K-I0. In the draft history curriculum, this topic is covered better
in the primary years than in later years. This topic could be better sequenced.
Conclusion
Overall, the ACT welcomes the introduction of phase one of the Australian Curriculum because
it aligns well with our existing curriculum framework with respect to both recency and content.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 124
New South Wales (NSW)
Results from the online survey showed that respondents from NSW were the most critical of the draft
Australian Curriculum. NSW respondents rated the content descriptions, elaborations and
achievement standards significantly lower than respondents from other states. Concerning these
issues, the largest differences between NSW and other state ratings were:
55% of NSW respondents agreed that the draft content descriptions are clear (compared
to an average 77% across the other states)
47% of NSW respondents agreed that the draft content descriptions are pitched
appropriately (compared to an average 66% across the other states)
49% of NSW respondents agreed that the draft content elaborations are clear (compared
to an average 71% across the other states)
54% of NSW respondents agreed that the draft achievement standards are sequenced
appropriately (compared to an average 74% across the other states)
In addition their views on specific aspects of the draft national curriculum, NSW respondents also
held more negative opinions of the curriculum being at a world-class standard. Results from the
online survey indicated that:
42% of NSW respondents agreed that the draft Australian Curriculum sets challenging yet
realistic standards (compared to an average 66% across the other states)
42% of NSW respondents agreed that the draft Australian Curriculum enables the pursuit
of in-depth teaching and learning (compared to an average 70% across the other states)
52% of NSW respondents agreed that the draft Australian Curriculum provides coherence
and continuity across the stages of schooling (compared to an average 76% across the
other states)
32% of NSW respondents agreed that the draft Australian Curriculum reflects a world-
class curriculum (compared to an average 57% across the other states)
Consultation forum participants overwhelmingly felt that the draft Australian Curriculum did not have
the spiralling nature of the NSW Curriculum. Without this, it was suggested that there is no scope for
developing a continuum and sequence of learning.
The draft curriculum was found to have lower expectations of students compared to the NSW
Curriculum. Additionally, content was not seen as taking into account students‘ stages of cognitive
development. An outcome-based approach, as employed in NSW, was seen as more appropriate.
An extract from the New South Wales response to the draft K-10 Australian Curriculum, prepared by
the NSW Board of Studies, is presented overleaf.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 125
K-10 Draft Australian Curriculum SUBMISSION
NSW Board of Studies
As far as possible this paper attempts to identify specific actions to be undertaken to prepare the
Australian Curriculum for implementation. The response includes a rationale for the proposals
wherever possible. The paper does not take a position on the appropriate or feasible timeline for
preparing the Australian curriculum but notes the primacy of quality in curriculum development and
implementation and the processes that are necessary to achieve this.
2. Presentation and structure of content
Recommendations
- ACARA should develop and disseminate an overarching framework of the curriculum to
delineate the scope of content to be covered within each subject and to support the
coherence of the curriculum across all subject areas.
- The framework should describe the continuity between the Australian curriculum to the
national Early Years Learning Framework and address articulation with senior years of
schooling and other transition points within Years K to 10.
- The framework should set out time allocations to which ACARA will develop curriculum for
each subject area at different year/stage levels.
- There should be a substantial reduction in the amount of content expected for each unit of
time indicated to writers.
- Time allocations should allow for existing practice in jurisdictions to achieve quality
outcomes, or ACARA should present an educational rationale for inconsistency with existing
practice.
- The framework should clarify the relationship between the subject content and General
Capabilities and Cross Curriculum Dimensions.
- The structures and terminology of organisational frames through which content is presented
(strands and topics, for example) should be made as consistent as possible across
subjects.
- There should be a greater distinction between the content descriptions and the
elaborations, entailing a clarification of some content descriptions.
- Substantial issues of coherence, consistency and sequencing within subjects need to be
addressed (specific subject sections below provide specific suggestions).
Comments
There is a need to present an overarching structure or ‗blueprint‘ of the curriculum that ACARA is
intending to develop. An assessment of the aggregate effect of the curriculum and a judgement as
to the overall effect on student learning can only be made in the context of a valid overarching
framework. That framework needs to plot the general intentions of student learning across all
subject areas and from Kindergarten to at least the end of Year 10.
The ultimate effectiveness of a curriculum will depend on the coherence of such a framework, the
balance of learning opportunities it provides and the appropriateness of the content to the range of
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 126
students at each stage.
Such a framework or blueprint could have emerged from the principles set out in The Shape of the
Australian Curriculum and are used as a common reference point for judging the coherence of the
content of these draft curriculum documents.
The relationship of the draft curriculum frameworks to the Early Years Learning Framework is
unclear. An overarching framework that explicates the roles and elements of the curriculum in more
specific terms than The Shape of the Australian Curriculum paper but is wider in scope than the
subject-shaping papers would help address this issue.
Such a curriculum framework needs to set out the relationship of the content to the General
Capabilities and Cross Curriculum Dimensions (discussed in section 5 below), if these aspects of the
curriculum are to be further developed.
2.1 Content descriptions and elaborations
The model adopted of mandatory content descriptions and illustrative elaborations allows
jurisdictions and schools the flexibility to develop teaching and learning programs that effectively
meet the needs of students, while ensuring a common learning entitlement for all students.
It is understood that as a whole the content descriptions for Kindergarten to Year 10 set out the
scope of learning within the relevant subject areas that should be provided for all students. In
circumstances where a line of differentiation or choice is provided, as in higher-level mathematics in
junior secondary, it should be on the basis that the scope of choice should generally be accessible
to all students subject to their choice and ability.
The basis for selecting the specific content and the extent of the content in each subject is not clear.
While the shaping papers for each area set out an overall frame for addressing the subject, they are
not intended to and do not establish a measure of the extent or nature of the specific content that
might be considered essential. The selection of content generally appears to be an amalgamation of
existing content requirements across jurisdictions. While this is not in itself inappropriate, it does
raise the question of how specific inclusions in areas such as history were identified and settled.
This problem is acute when the total content appears to be excessive as is the case for this
curriculum. There needs to be a clearer rationale for the specific topics and inclusions to justify the
overall effect of the inclusions in each subject and across the subjects.
The content descriptions selected must stand alone. There should be a clearer distinction between
the content descriptions and elaborations and their purposes. Too frequently, the content
descriptions rely on the elaborations to establish the teaching and learning that is intended.
2.2 Organisation of content
There is generally a lack of coherence and consistency in the organisation and presentation of the
content both within and across the subject areas. Across subjects content is presented in various
ways including by strands and topics. A consistent approach is favoured particularly for primary
teachers who will manage the full range of subjects.
The overview or framework for the curriculum should set out issues of structure within and across
subjects, and outline the theoretical and research underpinnings of any significant structural
decisions.
2.3 Content descriptions
The substantial challenge of developing content descriptions that are sufficiently detailed to ensure
clarity and national consistency, while avoiding perceptions of undue prescriptiveness, is
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 127
recognised.
Each subject-specific report that follows includes specific suggested enhancements of the content
descriptions to better meet this goal including with regard to identification of:
ordering of content statements within a sequence
continuity across strands or concepts
placement of content in the appropriate year or stage of schooling
the appropriateness of topic sequences.
The global nature of the content descriptions makes it difficult to be confident about the time
implications for each subject. There is a general perception that there is too much content for the
time allocations that ACARA has indicated. This perception is based on teachers‘ knowledge of the
topics, issues and concepts set out in the content descriptions and their awareness of the
pedagogies that they entail.
It is crucial that content can be effectively taught and learned in the time available. Overall the
content descriptions within the time allocated represent an increase in content and an overcrowding
of the curriculum. It is unlikely that students will be able to achieve depth of knowledge and
understanding within the time allocations indicated by ACARA as guidance for writers. Overall the
draft curriculum has not met the objective of delivering less breadth to be explored in greater depth.
2.4 Elaborations
There is general agreement that the greater detail of elaborations is helpful in clarifying the content
descriptions.
As noted, there are some content descriptions that are dependent on the elaborations to explain
their intent.
There should be more consistency in the nature and tone of elaborations within and across the
subject areas.
2.5 Indicative times in the curriculum
While there is a general concern about the indicated time allowances from ACARA, there is also
substantial concern about the structure of the content. There is no rationale presented for the
distribution of times across subject areas and therefore no argument made for jurisdictions to
unsettle existing arrangements to meet ACARA‘s indicative time allocations.
The extent of the content itself does not appear to be the basis for the allocation of indicative times
across subject areas as there is no rationale for determining the extent of content within or across
the subject areas.
Until recently NSW has been the only state with indicative time allocations. While these allocations
have been partly a result of accumulated practice, there have been many public discussions and
consultative processes over time to establish a consensus on the structure of allocations based on
the purposes and aims of the curriculum. Similar discussions to establish a cogent rationale for the
nature of the curriculum scope and the distribution of time across that curriculum have not been
undertaken here.
There has been a lack of clarity about the time to be committed to subjects within the curriculum
throughout the curriculum development process. The NSW Board of Studies has been consistent in
raising concerns about the time allocations.
The hours offered in NSW have been provided as guidance for a balanced approach to the
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 128
curriculum.
Subject Teaching time allowed
for Australian
curriculum subjects
per annum
Indicative teaching
time for NSW BOS
syllabuses per annum
Teaching time to which
government schools
are staffed per annum
English 7–10 160 hours 100 hours 125 hours
History 7–10 80 hours 50 hours 50 hours
Mathematics 7–10 160 hours 100 hours 125 hours
Science 7
Science 8–10
120 hours
160 hours
100 hours 125 hours
Subject Teaching time allowed
for Australian
curriculum subjects
per annum
Guidelines for NSW
BOS syllabuses per
annum
Guidelines for NSW
government schools
are staffed per annum
English K-6 300 hours 250 - 300 hours 250 - 300 hours
History K-6 80 hours 60 - 100 hours HSIE 60 - 100 hours HSIE
Mathematics K-6 200 hours 200 hours 200 hours
Science K-6 80 hours 60 - 100 hours 60 - 100 hours
There is a general concern that the amount of time committed to phase 1 subjects in Years 7 to 10
is more than is currently allocated in NSW. As noted NSW places a great deal of emphasis on the
importance of key subjects such as English, history, mathematics and science and is the only state
to have retained an external assessment of learning in these areas at the end of Year 10.
NSW believes that an increase in indicative times for these subject areas will not of itself improve
the level of learning expected of students but may crowd out important learning in other areas. In
addition, excessive time allocations present risks of content overload and subsequent student
disengagement
There is particular concern that the indicative hours in Years 9 and 10 will crowd out opportunities
for important activities that go toward achieving the range of ambitions held for all students. These
include opportunities, for example, to participate in vocational education and community service
activities. Further there is concern that there will be limited flexibility to establish and explore
curricular interests that help prepare students for effective senior secondary study.
Similar concerns exist for Year 7 where the amount of content appears to be substantially more
than is currently the case in NSW without explanation or rationale.
For K to 6 there is particular concern that 80 hours has been committed to the teaching of History.
In NSW 80 hours is recommended for the Human Society and its Environment Learning Area which
includes the study of History and Geography and aspects of Citizenship and Society.
The draft curriculum appears to have been developed around unit multiples of 20 hours. There is a
general view in NSW that any content set at less than 50 hours does not provide adequate
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 129
opportunity to address the subject content.
It is understood that ACARA‘s indicative hours are intended as support and guidelines for curriculum
writers. Nonetheless the amount of content developed by writers should be consistent with existing
practice, or ACARA should present a clear rationale for change.
The resource implications of changed curriculum allocations within jurisdictions will be quite severe,
particularly in the NSW context where allocations are already prescribed by regulation. The
successful implementation of the curriculum is contingent on an adequate supply of suitably
qualified teachers with the necessary subject expertise. Based on the indicative hours for phase 1
subjects there will be a serious shortfall in the supply of secondary teachers in these four areas.
The curriculum development process must take into account the context of schools and the
available resources for implementation. The consequences of not responding adequately to this
issue are significant.
3. Achievement standards
Recommendations
The relationship of the achievement standards to reporting needs to be reconsidered.
The achievement standards should be evolved to be more integrated and there need to be
general statements about the learning and skills that students in the subject at that year are expected to gain.
The achievement standards should be calibrated more realistically to the appropriate level for satisfactory achievement at each year of schooling.
Comments
There is a lack of clarity as to the intended nature and purpose of the achievement standards. As a
result, they do not meet their expected aims.
The achievement standards attempt to give a holistic summary of the learning that characterises
students in each subject at the end of each year of schooling. However they do not succeed in this
because they are largely a compilation of the content descriptions. As such they are somewhat
disparate, failing to provide an overall picture of the skills, understandings and knowledge students
are expected to develop from studying the subject. They need to incorporate a more global
description of achievement in the subject that gives a sense of the ‗big ideas‘ students will have
engaged with to this point in their learning.
At the same time, the achievement standards are expected to describe typical achievement at the C
level in the subject at the end of the year of schooling. This is incompatible with the previous
purpose. If the achievement standards succeed in the first purpose, when they are then read as the
typical achievement of an individual student performing at the C level, they are far too ambitious.
There is a further conceptual difficulty with attempting to combine these two purposes. In the
second purpose, the achievement standard is considered to be at the ‗C‘ level for a given year, with
the B and A levels above it, and the D and E levels below it. The same situation applies, of course,
for the achievement standard at the next year. This implies that a student‘s growth can be
characterised as a journey through the levels for one year, and on to the levels for the next year
(with, perhaps, some overlap). This means that attainment of A level in Year 5 History is somewhat
akin to E or D level in Year 6 History. It is not the case that a high-performing Year 5 student displays
similar achievement in History to a low-performing Year 6 student. (This may be true if the domain
being assessed is more a skills-based one, such as literacy.)
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 130
A more useful approach is to restrict the achievement standards to the first purpose – a synthesis of
the learning that may be expected to be gained by the end of the year of schooling – and to report
quality of achievement of this learning as grades A to E. These differing levels of quality can be
described using generic descriptors, and illustrated by choosing an appropriate range of samples of
student work for each grade in each subject in each year of schooling.
4. Equity
Recommendations
- The amount of content in the Australian curriculum should be reduced to allow teachers the
opportunity to meet the needs of the diverse range of students in most classrooms.
- ACARA should establish a process which engages a wide range of Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander educators to build confidence that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
knowledge, history, cultures and perspectives are genuinely integral to the substance of the
curriculum, as appropriate for an Australian curriculum and consistent with ACARA‘s stated
principles.
- ACARA should as a matter of urgency consult on a coherent and genuine approach to
integrated learning for students with disabilities in order for the Australian curriculum to be
compliant with the Disabilities Discrimination Act 1992 and the Disability Standards.
Comment
The Shape of the Australian Curriculum proposes that the curriculum will meet the needs of all
students. This is an important priority for all NSW schools.
The most fundamental contribution that the Australian curriculum can make in this regard is to
establish clear and common learning expectations for all students. Those expectations need to be
inclusive of the diverse perspectives and interests that are brought to school from children of
different backgrounds and experiences.
A common Australian curriculum on the model proposed (content descriptions and elaborations) can
form the foundation for common, broad and high learning expectations for all when complemented
with varied and effective support strategies at jurisdictional, system and school level throughout the
nation.
The content of the draft curriculum needs to address the following issues:
4.1 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students
The Australian curriculum must be valid and recognised as valid by Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander students and communities, regardless of location across Australia. In that context the
common Australian curriculum should embody the expectations for the learning of Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander students as for all other students.
It is essential for all students to learn about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories and
cultures.
Moreover, Aboriginal experiences and perspectives must be prominent in and integral to the
Australian curriculum overall. The range of opportunities to integrate Aboriginal issues, perspectives
and experiences, and to identify the place of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the
context of contemporary Australian experience, appear not have been taken up in the draft
curriculum. There is a general view that the curriculum development process has not been thorough
in this regard.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 131
More consistent engagement of Aboriginal educators is crucial to building confidence in the
Australian curriculum.
4.2 Students with special education needs
There is no apparent content or approach to the content to address the learning needs of students
with disabilities.
While ACARA may be undertaking developmental work in this area, the model or general approach
has not been available for consultation. This issue should have been settled as part of an
overarching blueprint for the development of a national curriculum.
NSW uses a successful model of Life Skills outcomes and content that provides students who have
an intellectual disability with opportunities to engage with age-appropriate content so that they have
similar learning opportunities as their age cohort. This approach assists teachers who have students
with special education needs in their mainstream classrooms.
4.3 Gifted and talented students
The content-laden approach to the curriculum does not allow enough flexibility to provide for depth
and variation of applications of content that help meet the needs of gifted and talented students.
Due to the amount of content in the draft curriculum there is insufficient time to develop deeper
understandings or skills or to revise prior skills for all students. The amount of content also reduces
the time and flexibility to contextualise learning and to actively engage students in inquiry-based
learning.
Generally, the expression of the content does not signal the opportunities for abstracted concepts
that challenge high achieving students.
4.4 Students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds
There is recognition of Australia‘s cultural and linguistic diversity in the draft Australian curriculum.
There is scope for this to be reflected more fully and consistently in all four draft curriculum
documents.
5. General capabilities and cross-curriculum dimensions
Recommendations
- ACARA should consider the overall approach to general capabilities and cross-curriculum
dimensions to clarify the exact role of each and their relationship to the subject content.
- Scope and sequence material should be developed for literacy and numeracy as a priority.
Comment
There is general enthusiasm among teachers consulted for describing dimensions of learning in
ways that are not limited to presentation through the subject domains.
There is a general lack of clarity about the purpose of the general capabilities and cross-curriculum
dimensions. This is reflected in the uneven inclusion of curriculum items under these headings.
The Shape of the Australian Curriculum document made a case for a number of General
Capabilities and Curriculum Dimensions being identified explicitly as part of the curriculum. Since
then these have been presented in the draft Australian curriculum as another, alternative or
additional dimension to the subject curriculum. This process and the process of development and
consultation have raised questions about the coherence of the ACARA approach to cross-curriculum
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 132
capabilities and dimensions and their relationship to the subject curriculum.
Each of the areas identified as General Capabilities are different in nature and in some cases
should be treated differently. Literacy and Numeracy are a different order of General Capability to
the others identified. There is consensus that these form foundation learning for all other areas.
There is also general agreement and specific knowledge among teachers and the community as to
what constitutes literacy and numeracy and how it generally manifests itself in learning. They are
generally seen as subsets of the subjects English and mathematics but are also seen as having
specific expressions across all other areas. For these reasons specific scope and sequence of
learning for literacy and numeracy are required.
ICT is listed by ACARA as a separate subject to be developed. Clearly ICT processes can also be
applied in all learning areas. Some clarity is required on this issue.
Other areas are not as easily defined for the purposes of curriculum development. They may be
seen as student dispositions, characteristics or emphases that evolve as a result of learning through
the content areas. They may also be seen as domains of content learning in their own right.
Depending on how they are defined they should be expressed and presented differently.
If this specific subset of the general capabilities is to be seen as student capacities or dispositions,
they may be best expressed in the form of global learning outcomes rather than as specific items of
curriculum content. The extent to which these learning areas can be validly addressed through
specific teaching programs, and their relationship to the subject content, would need to be
specifically explained and consultation sought.
If the specific subsets of general capabilities are seen as an alternative or additional curriculum
content paradigm, the relationship of this paradigm to the subject framework will need to be
articulated. There is a danger of the general capabilities framework being adopted by teachers as a
legitimate alternative frame for presenting content. If this is intended, a more thorough case needs
to be made for each learning area and substantial and broad consultations need to be undertaken
with regard to each of the general capabilities. In that circumstance, ACARA should set out the
epistemological basis of the content described and describe its complementary role to the subject
curriculum. There will then be an issue of the appropriateness of an independent scope and
sequence for each general capability (other than for literacy and numeracy).
The cross-curriculum dimensions present similar issues. The issues identified are significant and the
place of Aboriginal dimensions is addressed elsewhere in this paper. Generally however it is unclear
why the identified areas are more important than, say, vocational education or the principles of a
broad liberal education.
The capacity to sort the subject content by these dimensions does not of itself ensure a thorough
and genuine integration of these issues in the curriculum.
Currently in NSW the cross-curriculum content (incorporating a range of the general capabilities and
cross curriculum dimensions) of syllabuses is embedded in content statements. This work was
preceded by the development of a scope and sequence of what we want all students to know and
do in relation to these areas.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 133
Northern Territory (NT)
Feedback from the online survey highlights key areas of the draft national curriculum that are
considered strengths by NT respondents. Relative to the feedback from other states, NT respondents
provided the highest proportion of positive feedback for the following issues:
88% of NT respondents agreed that the draft content descriptions covered the important
content across learning areas (compared to an average 75% across the other states)
80% of NT respondents agreed that the draft achievement standards are clear and
unambiguous (compared to an average 69% across the other states)
78% of NT respondents agreed that the draft achievement standards are coherent
(compared to an average 70% across the other states)
70% of NT respondents agreed that the annotated work samples help illustrate and
exemplify the achievement standards (compared to an average 57% across the other
states)
Nationally, however, a relatively low number of NT respondents found the Australian Curriculum
website user friendly – 47% found it difficult to navigate. A related issue was raised in the NT
consultation forums. Access was an area of concern as remote/rural communities suffer intermittent
and unreliable internet connections across the whole of the Territory, including urban settings at
times.
Lastly, 84% of NT respondents indicated in the online survey that the draft K- 10 Australian
Curriculum does not take into account the needs of all students. Opinions on this issue were
strongest in NT. Consultation forum participants specifically indicated that the special needs of
ESL/EAL/EAD learners are an important issue in the NT as these students are a large percentage of
the Territory‘s school population. They strongly indicated that explicit attention be placed on ESL
practice and standards of practice.
Within the consultation forums, inclusivity of content in relation to indigenous students was an
additional concern for NT respondents, as were implicit assumptions about attendance levels. It was
felt that these students would be discouraged by ambitious content and achievement standards.
The NT response to the draft K-10 Australian Curriculum, prepared by the NT Department of
Education and Training, is presented overleaf.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 134
K-10 Draft Australian Curriculum SUBMISSION
NT Department of Education and Training
The following feedback in relation to the draft K-10 maths, science, English, and history curricula is
provided by divisional staff in relation to:
Australian curriculum content and structure
Implementation of each learning area in Northern Territory schools.
This NT response is in addition to feedback provided by groups and individuals through the ACARA
curriculum consultation portal, and at the ACARA consultations held in the Northern Territory in April
2010.
CURRICULUM CONTENT AND STRUCTURE FEEDBACK
All learning areas
NT acknowledges the benefits of clear expectations, in particular, that what students should
learn at each year is explicit
The learning needs of students who do not have English as their main language should be
fore-grounded in each learning area, to establish that all teachers in all learning areas have
a responsibility for teaching and learning in, of, and through English
When assessment and reporting are added, guidelines for evidence-based assessment and
reporting for English as an Additional Language students will be required
Include hyperlinks to all content, elaborations, etc. where definition/explanations relating to
the teaching of EAL learners need to provide additional information
Ensure standardised presentation/format for all learning areas
Maths
Strengths
That cross-curriculum dimensions, especially indigenous perspectives, is explicit in the
mathematics curriculum
That the Australian Curriculum will allow for teacher resources to be shared Australia wide
That content is clearly specified at each year level and aligned with current teaching texts
Issues
The developmental continuum across the T-10 year levels is inconsistent, there are sequencing
issues, and the content is sometimes fragmented. The following points illustrate this:
Inappropriate content placement: content too light in K-5, too broad in Years 6-8 to allow for
sufficient depth
This curriculum gives a fragmented picture – there is too much emphasis on separate ideas
rather than big ideas
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 135
Inconsistencies in geometry and algebra content
Sequencing concerns – relation to number learning/counting, place value, time, space, and
measurement, particularly in the earlier years
No flow through from primary to Year 7 – Year 7 appears disconnected
Algebra content: introduced too early in the curriculum, especially its inclusion at Years K
and 1
Statistics content: difficult to see the progression in Years 1 and 2. Needs to be more
consistent
Chance: need to introduce the idea of chance right from Year K
Geometry gap in early years
It is not clear when 7 times tables are addressed
When do students learn to use a compass?
There is a lack of connection between the content of the mathematics curriculum and the real-life
application of mathematical skills and principles. For example:
A need to include a greater focus needed on financial literacy/mathematics
Lack of focus on problem solving and mathematical skills that are applicable in everyday
situations
Change in focus: there should be a focus on children undertaking investigations
Pie charts in Year 6: Should focus on understanding pie charts, when to use, why to use
In relation to the form/presentation of the curriculum document:
Content descriptor headings should be consistent
Proficiency strands – not strongly reflected
There is likely to be a shortage of trained maths teachers to effectively implement this curriculum.
English
Strengths
The articulation of grammar, inclusion of general capabilities, and the clarity of content descriptors
are seen as strengths.
Issues
As the NT curriculum is framed using reading, writing, listening/speaking modes, there will be a
need for professional learning to refocus the teaching of the English learning area on literacy,
language, and literature.
Will there be further discussions regarding a nationally approved handwriting style? NT currently
uses Victorian cursive, however, as the population is mobile, many students enrolling from interstate
have experienced an alternative style.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 136
English is organised around three strands (literacy, language, and literature), but assessed
(achievement standards) according to modes (listening/speaking, reading, and writing). Will
reporting reflect achievement of modes only, or achievement of modes within each of the strands?
Consensus that English in Asia is inappropriate, particularly at Year 7.
The following are raised for consideration in respect of the English language learning by the
significant numbers of EAL students in the NT.
In the NT, significant numbers of students are learning English as a first, second or third
language. It is through the subject area of English that many of these learners will have the
opportunity to receive targeted teaching and learning of English. ESL considerations should
be visible in the content and the elaborations through, for example, explicit statements of
language: e.g. grammar, functions
Development of EAL achievement standards and reporting framework are needed.
Inclusion of EAL work samples to be included, illustrating appropriate levels of achievement
based on ESL level of development
Science
Strengths
SHE is more detailed and has higher expectations of students and more depth than the
section in the NT Curriculum. It connects science and culture in a way that should engage
more students
Collaboration, ICT, literacy and numeracy are evident throughout
The better elaborations show how the three strands are interrelated
Issues
The NT Curriculum is firmly grounded in a cognitive framework (based on the SOLO taxonomy). Thus,
the content requires students to develop cognitive skills as they progress through the band levels.
The draft Australian Curriculum has many examples of skills and content being ‗‖out of sequence‖
as far as cognitive skills are concerned. E.g. Year 9 descriptors in the achievement standards
contain a lot of describe, compare, appreciate, which are generally regarded as lower-level cognitive
skills.
The draft Australian curriculum has content that is not well sequenced. E.g. Study of micro-
organisms, and growth and reproduction before the study of cells. In the astronomy thread at Year
3, day and night are studied in relation to Earth‘s rotation; then in Year 7, the effects of Earth‘s
rotation on its axis again!
The elaborations are important for guiding the teacher, but they are inconsistent, sometimes
supplying definitions of terms, sometimes seeming to prescribe content, sometimes being very
broad.
There is a lack of clear themes for each year level as students‘ progress and plants are almost
completely ignored.
The curriculum mapping exercise has highlighted content areas that are covered in the Australian
Curriculum, but absent in the NTCF and vice versa (see table below) at particular year levels. There
will need to be professional learning to refocus teaching in line with these differences.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 137
Consensus that the Asia and Australia perspective is tokenistic, and that sustainability is not
sufficiently fore-grounded in the curriculum.
History
The draft history curriculum shaping paper clearly identifies the importance and benefits of the
teaching and learning of history. It is less clear regarding ―whose‖ version of history is taught. Forty
percent of students in NT schools identify as indigenous, and the ―history‖ learning needs of these
children, particularly those in remote locations, will vary.
There are differences between the NTCF and the Australian Curriculum in history in the sequencing
of history topics, the year levels where topics are introduced and the extent of the emphasis on
some topic areas.
The draft Australian Curriculum – history: organisation identifies that it "emphasises a skills- and
inquiry-based model of teaching", but that "there should not be a focus on historical method at the
expense of historical knowledge." The historical content – the knowledge of historical periods as
defined from a European point of view – is outlined in detail, whereas historical concepts and the
skills of historical inquiry are not. For example, ―skills: formulate inquiry questions‖ does not inform
teachers or students about what kinds of inquiry are intrinsic to history. The six historical thinking
concepts described in Benchmarks of Historical Thinking: A Framework for Assessment in Canada
are clear examples of modes of inquiry which could be incorporated.
The content focus is at the expense of historical literacy skills/understandings/knowledge and
concepts. The UK and Canadian history curricula provide examples of this focus and are based on
conceptual organisers that build and reinforce learning over the stages of schooling. Conceptually
rather than content organised curriculum, with direction for appropriate content within each
conceptual area would better facilitate the development of history skills/knowledge and
understandings. The UK history curriculum provides focus questions to be covered over a range of
years. This would suit the NT context where there are many multi-level/multi-age/multi-grade
classrooms.
The curriculum could also have greater focus on what types of evidence are available for different
historical periods, how this evidence is found, and the limits of our interpretations of those kinds of
evidence. 60,000 BP is generally considered a prehistoric period, and evidence comes from the
fields of archaeology, paleoanthropology, etc. These fields are not referred to in the draft curriculum.
The section on links to science suggests "the study of sources of evidence ... broadens student
understanding of the various applications of science", but does not mention that an understanding
of what types of analysis were available in the past, what are available now (and what might be
available in the future) can contribute to our understanding of how historical narrative is created.
The depth studies can provide excellent opportunities for further study that is focused and
rich, however: There is a lack of clarity around what is meant by ―depth study‖. A definition
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 138
should be developed and agreed upon
There is lack of consistency in the grain size of depth studies. Some are prescriptive, others
more general
There is a concern that there will not be enough time for meaningful depth studies to be
taught and assessed, adding to an overcrowded, unmanageable curriculum
Regarding implementation, most history specialists are in high schools or senior-secondary colleges.
As history moves from the SOSE learning area to a stand-alone subject in the T-10 years, it is
anticipated that considerable professional learning will be required, nationally, by primary and
middle years teachers. Significant need will exist to provide professional learning to all non-
specialist teachers of history. Opportunities should be made available for graduate or post-graduate
studies in history.
ACHIEVEMENT STANDARDS
Australian curriculum prescribes content descriptions by year level, while the NT curriculum uses
band levels. This means that a student in a class in the NT can achieve in any year level and the
achievement is described in terms of the bands. E.g. A Year 9 student may be achieving at Band 3,
NT Curriculum, but would score a D or E in the Australian Curriculum because of the requirement
that students are reported on against the year level. Under this system many students would be
consigned to D or E grades throughout their schooling.
The achievement standards at this stage contain too many vague descriptors, e.g. ―...begins to
evaluate,‖ ―has some awareness of fair testing.‖ It would be difficult to grade a student‘s work on an
A-to-E scale using these descriptors. Some achievement standards in science refer to the
elaborations rather than the understandings.
How is it possible for achievement standards in each learning area to also provide a meaningful
measure of achievement by the range of learners including special needs and EAL learners?
ASSESSMENT AND REPORTING
Clarity from ACARA is needed in the area of assessment and reporting. How does ACARA anticipate
A-E reporting will occur? If this remains the responsibility of States/Territories how can we achieve
consistency across the country? This has major ramifications for the Northern Territory during
implementation. Currently the NT has a systemic reporting tool (Curriculum eTool) that is linked to
the Northern Territory Curriculum Framework outcomes. As the Australian curriculum is
implemented, content and achievement standards will come from ACARA, however, they do not align
with NTCF outcomes. Teachers will need to make the link across until a system is developed for
reporting on the Australian Curriculum achievement standards.
There is an urgent need for a national data tool to ensure accurate, nationally comparable
achievement data that facilitates a nationally comparable assessment and reporting regime.
Development of process and practice to ensure nationally comparable A-E grades is a priority.
How will this link with NAPLAN?
What considerations will be included for students with special education needs and
students learning English as an additional language?
TIME ALLOCATION
It is requested that ACARA provide a range of indicative time allocations for each learning area to
ensure a degree of national consistency in time spent on each learning area.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 139
CROSS-CURRICULUM PERSPECTIVES
Indigenous perspectives in the history curriculum
Intercultural knowledge and intercultural learning/capability need to be integrated and
visible in each learning area/across the curriculum. While stated, it does not take a
directional role in the learning areas – the quest for global and 21st century education
should perhaps give this more emphasis
Why the stated study of literature in Asia and not that of indigenous cultures as well as the
variety of cultures represented in Australia, which of course includes Asia?
Indigenous perspectives not included consistently throughout the history curriculum
Some opportunities in depth studies, but not enough and as a perspective in the curriculum
there is no thread that continues through the years
Is there a danger of reinforcing the stone age/boomerang view? Language used often
positions Indigenous culture and society as the ―other‖, the ―outsider‖, and an ―artefact‖
Year 2 Year 2, in general, appears to be more complex than Year 3
Year 4 Skills not developed the same as Year 3
Topic matter over-simplified. Knowledge, understanding and concepts need to
be more challenging
Does not explicitly ask students to explore the consequences of contact – how
it was different, what attitudes, values, and beliefs of these people. E.g.
Makassan, Dutch, French, English, Portuguese
No. 2: the significance of the dreaming and the perspectives and meaning in
dreaming – at Year 4, this is over-simplified. Is dreaming the most appropriate
word to use or is it to do with people‘s connection with country and land? Seek
advice from indigenous pole in relation to this
Year 5 Becoming a nation: makes no reference to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
peoples – does not highlight or suggest the struggles characteristic of nation-
building
Year 7 What is history?
No. 1-6 would be better as integrated rather treating them separately using
same content – difficult to neatly separate
Constructs – reflect on the language used –tends towards ideological view
(language of hegemony) in the content descriptions
Australia developed at different times – not reflected
Year 9 Use of time periods raises issues related to the neat categorisation of history
into a time period – can lead to discrete history rather than the influences of
earlier times and later impacts
Conceptual versus time-period treatments/approaches should be further
explored and discussed
Year 10 Opportunities for extended inquiry study on a range of topics
Many opportunities to explore overseas conflicts but few in relation to
Australian conflicts
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 140
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
The ACARA curriculum mapping exercise (phase one) has shown strong alignment between the NTCF
and the Australian Curriculum in English and mathematics.
NT will need to examine areas where Australian Curriculum is stronger or where areas are weak or
missing from NTCF to determine what support teachers will need to implement the curriculum. It is
anticipated that there will be a significant need to support teachers in introducing dedicated history
programs where history in the NT has formed part of a broader social education program.
It is also expected that in some primary schools and remote contexts, dedicated support in
implementing science and history programs will be needed.
RESOURCING NEEDS
When will resources become available?
What level of resource support (curriculum, assessment and reporting) will ACARA provide
nationally?
Significant history resources will need to be sourced and/or developed
IMPLEMENTATION
Clarity not yet arrived at regarding an implementation strategy for the NT – various options are being
considered. Feedback from the completed curriculum mapping exercises and NT trial schools will
assist in determining the NT implementation timeline, and processes.
Issues under consideration include:
Staged implementation of separate learning areas?
Staged implementation across phases of learning?
Include Year 10 before senior-secondary curriculum is finalised?
Addressing different professional learning and support needs evident in different contexts
Queensland (QLD)
The feedback from online survey QLD respondents was generally aligned with the feedback from
other states. Slight dissatisfaction with the achievement standards was identified, however, with the
issues unique to the QLD feedback being:
65% of QLD respondents agreed that the draft achievement standards are coherent
(compared to an average 73% across the other states)
67% of QLD respondents agreed that the draft achievement standards are sequenced
appropriately (compared to an average 73% across the other states)
56% of QLD respondents agreed that the draft achievement standards are pitched
appropriately (compared to an average 61% across the other states)
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 141
The majority of Queensland online survey respondents also felt that the draft K-10 curriculum is
overcrowded. Forty-five percent said it was not overcrowded which was slightly lower than the national
average.
For Queensland forum participants, the issues surrounding Year 7 being in primary or secondary
school were of significant concern. If Year 7 is still in a primary environment, there would be major
training and resource implications. However, if Year 7 is in secondary school, teachers would need
professional development to shift.
The draft national curriculum was also seen as much more content driven than the Queensland
curriculum, which currently focuses more on investigation and ways of working.
Overall recommendations from the Queensland response to the draft K-10 Australian Curriculum,
prepared by the Queensland Studies Authority, are presented below.
K-10 Draft Australian Curriculum SUBMISSION
Queensland Studies Authority
Queensland‘s three schooling sectors (State, Catholic, and Independent), in partnership with the
Queensland Studies Authority appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback on the draft K(P)–103
Australian Curriculum.
Strengths
The Queensland Studies Authority and the three schooling sectors have agreed that strengths of the
four phase one learning areas include:
The rationale and aims, which present big ideas and issues
Greater content specificity to support teachers
High expectations for all students
An attempt to foreground inquiry in science and history
Inclusion of human endeavour, historical skills, and literature as strands
Inclusion of visual literacy in English
Inclusion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspectives, however, this could be
embedded more deeply and sequenced more thoroughly
Online format, although, some advice will be presented regarding the use of headings and
numbering
Key issues
The following key issues have been identified for consideration in the re-drafting of the phase one
learning areas. In summary the key issues are:
3 Kindergarten(K) in Queensland is referred to as Prep hence the reference K(P)-2.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 142
1. Coherence of the achievement standards
We acknowledge the extensive work done by ACARA thus far in terms of the achievement
standards. The achievement standards as single statements of the learning typically expected for
each year level in each learning area provide a progress map of the expectations for student
learning. Of the numerous meanings attributed to ―standards‖ in the educational literature, this
type of standard can be understood as progressive targets or milestones.
While successfully articulating a framework for growth and development, feedback on the
achievement standards focused on the need for further clarity about how teachers would judge the
quality of students‘ achievement and report the achievements on an A-E scale.
In the current Queensland curriculum documents standards are fixed reference points used to
describe how well students have achieved the objectives or essential learnings in syllabuses. The
standards show what students know, can do, and how well they know it and can do it. The
description of achievement standards are derived by groups of teachers and subject experts
describing the actual differences in examples of student work.
During the consultation, the following issues were raised consistently across all learning areas:
The achievement standards are more representative of a learning outcome, that is, what
students know and can do, than a clearly articulated standard that enables teachers to
determine ―how well‖ a student has performed
The overall aims of each learning area and content organisers should be aligned to the
achievement standards. Currently they are a content check list
The standards should include language to indicate quality such as depth and sophistication
Greater consistency in the structure of the achievement standards within and across
learning areas
Greater consistency in demand between and across learning areas (e.g. more comparable
demand expressed in the achievement standards between mathematics and English in
K[P]–2)
In the early years, the draft achievement standards include low-level verbs rather than
higher-order verbs, and processes that would allow students to demonstrate construction of
knowledge and metacognitive processes
2. Higher-order thinking in the Australian Curriculum
Australian Curriculum content descriptions describe specific methods of inquiry and
approaches to analysis at discrete points along the year-by-year continua. It is
recommended that more content descriptions and elaborations explicitly address the
teaching of thinking skills sequenced across learning areas at every year level
The application of metacognitive strategies needs to be included more consistently in the
standards
3. Internal consistency within the learning areas
Greater clarity and more direct relationships are needed between the learning area
rationales and aims and the content descriptions and elaborations
A consistent use of terminology throughout the learning areas, particularly in English
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 143
A clear indication of the relationship between the proficiencies and modes in the content
descriptions, particularly in mathematics and English
More consistent content description headings to indicate developmental sequences and
related content, particularly in English and science
Greater developmental consistency of key concepts across year levels, particularly in
mathematics and science
More consistent development of higher concepts as they are addressed across the strands
particularly in science (e.g. energy rather than sound or light)
A reduction in the quantity of content for all four learning areas, particularly Years 7–10,
and more clarity about depth of treatment of existing content descriptions
4. Consistency between learning areas
Expectations of the learner must be consistent between learning areas at year levels,
particularly numeracy demands in mathematics and science, and literacy demands in
science, history and English
More consistent application of the filters related to the general capabilities (GCs) to make
clear developmental continua of the GCs within and across learning areas, particularly
thinking skills
Consistent inclusion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspectives in the content
descriptions that develops across the year levels. The inclusion of specific knowledge, skills
and understandings only in elaborations should be limited
5. Students with needs beyond a general cohort
A clear statement about pre-K developmental stages would assist early years teachers
Consider the degree to which Year 1 content descriptions build on those for Kindergarten as
this year of schooling is not mandated in seven out of eight States and Territories
Review content descriptions and achievement standards across the learning areas (e.g.
mathematics and English in K[P]–2 achievement standards for consistency and
developmental appropriateness
Clearer messages about managing the standards for students who are not following the
content year by year
6. Relationship between content descriptions, dimensions, and general capabilities
Inclusion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspectives, knowledge, skills, and
understandings in content descriptions in all learning areas and avoiding positioning in
elaborations only
Improve the sequencing and broaden the content in the K[P]–2 curriculum to acknowledge
more directly the diverse range of cultural, environmental, and linguistic backgrounds and
prior skills and knowledge of children in the Kindergarten classroom
Other considerations
Other key issues raised by the schooling sectors are included below:
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 144
Managing the curriculum in small schools and/or multi-age contexts. To support multi-age
teaching, particularly in small schools, the curriculum needs to have clear conceptual
statements that underpin the curriculum to make the progressive development of concepts
across year levels explicit
Catering for the diverse range of learners ESL, Language Background Other Than English
(LBOTE), students with learning difficulties, and students working outside a year-by-year
continua:
- More detail and clearer messages are required from ACARA regarding the approaches to
the curriculum that will support students experiencing learning difficulties. In particular,
how the achievement standards are used for students with learning difficulties
- Greater clarity is required about the application of Standard Australian English (―SAE‖).
The draft English curriculum identifies SAE as the language of instruction. The
curriculum needs to make explicit how ESL learners are catered for in all learning areas
- Greater definition and consistent application of the general capability, inter-cultural
understanding; and the cross-curricular dimension of Asia and Australia‘s engagement
with Asia, is also required to develop intercultural understanding in English and history
in:
K(P)–2 through a focus on the students‘ own culture and cultural background
Years 3–6 by exploring other cultures and interaction with cultures
Years 7–10 by analysing the impact of contact on cultures and applying cultural
understanding and empathy
- Clear definition of the cross-curriculum dimension, Asia and Australia‘s engagement with
Asia, by including explicit direction in content descriptions in each of K(P)-2; Years 3-6,
and Years 7-10 that build student capacity to develop informed attitudes and values
about contemporary and traditional Asia and to connect Australia and Asia
The crowding of the curriculum and reduction of flexibility through unrealistic content
expectations across the first four learning areas
- The current breadth of the Australian Curriculum will impact on schools‘ ability to
maintain the diversity of approaches to the curriculum, especially in independent
schools. The amount of time phase one learning areas will take in the formal curriculum
will impact on the selection of curriculum options in the discretionary school time/space
left available
- The impact on the existing flexibility, particularly in Year 10, which is often when
increased flexible options, rather than mandated courses of study, are offered to
support increased student engagement
Using the ‖C‖ standard to report in the early years. Some advice about applying the
standard in the early years is required
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 145
South Australia (SA)
The feedback from online survey completed by SA respondents was generally consistent with the
feedback from other states. Only two issues were identified as unique to the SA feedback:
73% of SA respondents agreed that the draft K-10 Australian Curriculum sets challenging,
yet realistic standards (compared to an average 62% across the other states). This was
the highest proportion of positive feedback for this issue
52% of SA respondents agreed that the annotated work samples help illustrate and
exemplify the achievement standards (compared to an average 60% across the other
states). This was the lowest proportion of positive feedback for this issue
An issue of concern for the South Australian forums centred on the starting age of students and how
this relates to Reception in South Australia. Questions were raised about the national Reception
standard when students in South Australia spend varying amounts of time in Reception, and there are
different starting ages across the states.
Forum participants also held negative views on the lack of pedagogy (constructivism) in the draft
Australian Curriculum, as compared to Schools Authority and Catholic Schools Authority (―SACSA‖).
Similarly, SACSA is outcomes driven rather than focused on prescribing content.
The South Australian response to the draft K-10 Australian Curriculum, prepared by the SA
Department of Education and Children‘s Services, is presented below.
K-10 Draft Australian Curriculum SUBMISSION
SA Department of Education and Children‟s Services (“DECS”)
During the 1 March to 31 May 2010 consultation and trial period for the phase one Australian
Curriculum learning areas, South Australian teachers, community members, and educators have
participated in a range of activities including online feedback, trials, ACARA consultations, and DECS
consultations. Of the registered users on the ACARA consultation website,
www.australiancurriculum.edu.au, 10.59% are South Australians. They have provided individual and
group feedback on the draft phase one Australian Curriculum materials.
The DECS response does not attempt to detail these responses, rather it is aggregated from a
variety of feedback processes that involved more than 2000 South Australian leaders and teachers
including:
ACARA and State Consultative Forums for educators and leaders
Information and consultative workshops for teachers, leaders, and regional staff
Responses from various groups in DECS including Curriculum Services, Aboriginal Education
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 146
and Employment Services, Quality lmprovement and Effectiveness Unit, Supporting
Improved Literacy Achievement team, Supporting School lmprovement Team, Disability
Services, and the Early Years team
A variety of ongoing and newly established reference groups such as the history reference
group and English advisory group
1. General themes and issues
Affirming feedback
The DECS position is that there is positive support for the introduction of the Australian Curriculum
and the need for a consistent curriculum across the nation. SA educators engage favourably with the
rationale and philosophy expressed in the shaping and framing papers.
On balance, DECS educators have responded positively to the development by year level of the first
four learning areas' content descriptions and achievement standards. DECS teachers are generally
positive about the clarity these drafts bring to what they are expected to teach. DECS Curriculum
Services believes that this content clarity will enable teachers to focus on the pedagogy required to
improve outcomes for all students.
South Australia has a long-standing history working with general capabilities in the curriculum of
more than 20 years. Given that South Australian teachers are familiar with the SACSA framework's
essential learnings and cross-curriculum perspectives, they are responding positively to the
interdisciplinary nature of the Australian Curriculum's general capabilities and cross-curriculum
dimensions.
The digital format and layout is generally well supported by DECS educators.
2. Areas for further development
Achievement standards
DECS teachers expressed concern about the clarity of the achievement standards and will look for
additional support in using them, and in understanding the standards described.
The organisation of achievement standards appears to privilege some content over other content.
The availability of high-quality exemplars will be critical to enable teachers to make consistent
professional judgements about student achievement. National resources that assist in
understanding the use of the achievement standards will also increase consistency of interpretation.
A key issue expressed by DECS Disability Services and at educator forums is how the achievement of
students with disabilities and students with additional learning needs will be measured against the
achievement standards. The early achievement standards are too sophisticated and not sufficiently
―fine grained‖ to support planning for students with significant intellectual and cognitive disabilities.
For these students, the achievement standards will not enable description of their learning growth.
Transition points and multi-age groupings
DECS has concern about the transition from the Early Years Learning Framework to the Australian
Curriculum. Creating links that are explicit for learners and educators is a priority.
DECS teachers have discussed the Year 7-8 transition at length. As Year 7 is located in primary
schools in South Australia, particular concern is held for history, mathematics, and science. It is
suggested that there be a reduction of content in Year 7. This would recognise that for some
jurisdictions this year is completed in primary schools, with no specialist teachers or facilities, while
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 147
leaving scope for extension where facilities and specialist staff are available.
Consideration is required in relation to multi-aged groups, composite classes, and small school
settings to support educators to manage the complexities of specific content being described for
each year level. This issue will impact on movement between schools and states. DECS would
recommend a national ―A‖ and ―B‖ content priority system across the alternate years to reduce the
complexity in multi-aged groupings.
General capabilities
Given South Australia's history of embedding general capabilities in the curriculum, it is considered
vital that they be more explicit within all learning areas. Current use of the general capability (and
cross-curriculum dimensions) search filters identify very few connections. Improving this is seen as a
high priority.
DECS personnel will expect that redrafting of the curriculum materials will show more evidence of
general capabilities and cross-curriculum dimensions in all content descriptions and achievement
standards.
Indigenous perspectives
Other than in Year 4 history, the achievement standards do not include any compulsory learning
about aboriginal culture and history. Respondents indicated that there is insufficient clarity for
teachers about what to teach by year level.
In every learning area, there is insufficient prescribed content to ensure that all Australian students
systematically build indigenous perspectives from Reception to Year 10.
Asia and Australia's engagement with Asia
This cross-curriculum dimension is not yet clearly evident in the learning areas. The curriculum
materials could also include more real-world social, cultural, environmental, and economic issues.
This approach would ensure that young people learn about the diversity of cultures and their
influences on each other, and gain intercultural understanding and insights into their own cultural
assumptions.
Sustainability
The Australian Curriculum should equip students to act individually and collectively in ways that
contribute to sustainability. Education for sustainability can enable students to become effective
citizens and active change agents by helping them to deal with complexity and uncertainty. The
curriculum should provide opportunities for students to explore and evaluate contested and
emerging issues, gather evidence, and create solutions for a sustainable future.
Specific feedback in relation to English
DECS respondents indicated that the current draft seems overcrowded and should be streamlined
and better organised. For example, there are too many content description headings, which are
inconsistent across year levels. Fewer higher order headings would alleviate this problem.
DECS suggests that the use of verbs to introduce the content descriptions needs to be consistent.
For example, the language strand has no verbs in the content descriptions, only in the elaborations.
The inclusion of verbs in the content descriptions would better connect them with the demonstration
of learning required by the achievement standards.
Specific feedback in relation to mathematics
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 148
While mathematics had a high degree of alignment in the Porter scale mapping process, some
content and concepts appear earlier in the draft Australian Curriculum materials than in SACSA. The
use of two-year outcome statements in SACSA may be the source of this misalignment.
Consistency of headings across year levels would assist in the ease of use of the curriculum
document. For example, the number strand does not flow across year levels and others only appear
in specific years.
Specific feedback in relation to science
DECS supports the notion that the science learning area combines knowing about science, knowing
how to do science, appreciating science, and seeing it as a cultural and social endeavour.
Specific feedback in relation to history
There has been a positive response from DECS teachers to the inclusion of history in the Australian
Curriculum. Teachers consider that the curriculum provides an excellent opportunity to renew the
history curriculum in schools.
The preface for each year level requires development in order to reflect a higher order of conceptual
thinking. Even though an attempt has been made to develop the big ideals and essential questions
for each year level, they are not adequately developed to be useful planning descriptors.
DECS believes that the amount of content documented in Years 7-10 should be reviewed as it will be
difficult to cover in the time available, and in the current form, it does not allow for depth.
There was a concern that the indigenous history is concentrated in Year 4. Indigenous history should
be integrated across a broader range of year levels. There was also a concern about the non-
contemporary nature of much of the indigenous history described in the curriculum.
Tasmania (TAS)
Results from the online survey showed that respondents from Tasmania were the most approving of
the draft Australian Curriculum. Tasmanian respondents rated the content descriptions, elaborations,
and curriculum organisation significantly higher than respondents from other states. Concerning
these issues, the largest differences between Tasmania and other state ratings were:
90% of TAS respondents agreed that the organisation of the learning areas provides a
coherent view of the key elements and features of the curriculum (compared to an average
74% across the other states)
82% of TAS respondents agreed that the draft content elaborations illustrate the content
descriptions sufficiently (compared to an average 68% across the other states)
86% of TAS respondents agreed that the draft content descriptions are clear (compared to
an average 73% across the other states)
In addition to their views on specific aspects of the draft national curriculum, Tasmanian respondents
were the group most satisfied with the layout of the consultation website and the group who most
strongly felt that the three cross-curriculum dimensions were not evident in the curriculum. In general,
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 149
Tasmanians held the most positive opinions of the curriculum being at a world-class standard,
specifically:
70% of TAS respondents agreed that the draft Australian Curriculum reflects a world-class
curriculum (compared to an average 51% across the other states)
85% of TAS respondents agreed that the draft Australian Curriculum provides coherence
and continuity across the stages of schooling (compared to an average 71% across the
other states)
Despite the positive feedback from the online survey, Tasmanian forum participants felt that the draft
Australian curriculum should be more stage based, rather than year-level based, to allow for
sequential learning. The current Tasmanian curriculum allows for multi-age learning and
differentiated assessment because of its continuum nature.
Concerns were also raised about the starting age of students, as the age for starting K is often four
years. This has serious implications for development and students‘ ability to learn.
The Tasmanian response to the draft K-10 Australian Curriculum, prepared by the Department of
Education TAS, is presented below.
K-10 Draft Australian Curriculum SUBMISSION
Department of Education TAS
This response has been developed from consultation and trial-school feedback, professional
learning sessions, moderation meetings, cross-sector meetings, forums, subject-specific
conferences, and seminars. The advice aims to distil some of the key messages and trends that are
emerging from diverse responses across the state.
1. GENERAL
Strengths
Notion of a national curriculum – many groups have indicated that they like the notion of a
national curriculum and welcome the move towards national consistency
Layout and format – teachers appreciate the format of the online materials and the ease of use.
Flexible online presentation is appreciated, as is the capacity for filtering
Links with NAPLAN – from 2012 NAPLAN testing will be based on the Australian Curriculum for
mathematics and English. Schools using the curriculum will ensure students have been taught
the content which will be tested
Explicit expectations – Some teachers and principals have commented on the clarity about what
is expected for each grade level
Potential of access to online resources shared nationally. Tasmanian teachers generally agree
that there is much to be gained from access to national resources and see this as a benefit for
future planning, teaching, and assessing
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 150
The mapping process has indicated that there are strong links between a number of areas of the
existing Tasmanian curriculum and the Australian Curriculum, which should facilitate the
transition process
Issues
Some of the issues that have arisen for discussion and consideration are:
Potential overcrowding
There is a risk that the overall curriculum will become overcrowded as ACARA develops the
curriculum for each individual learning area. Tasmania supports the principles outlined in the Shape
of the Australian Curriculum paper that argues for a preference for depth, rather than breadth and
feasibility. The curriculum documents need to be reviewed against these principles as feedback
from some trial schools indicates that there is, currently, too much specific content defined to cover
in the time schools currently have available. Schools need an understanding of the total proposed
framework before beginning implementation of individual areas. It would be valuable to have a clear
integration design brief for teachers.
Conceptual
Tasmania favours a conceptual approach in organising content. This will support integration and
help meet the needs of multi-age groups, composite classes, and a range of student ability within
year groups. Consideration should be given to development of an overarching conceptual framework
that encompasses the learning areas identified in the Melbourne Declaration.
Indigenous perspectives
It has been suggested that some of the references to indigenous perspectives, particularly in the
content elaborations, are somewhat tokenistic. Care needs to be taken to only incorporate them
where there are genuine connections to the subject area under consideration. There is also a need
to ensure that that it is possible for teachers to access appropriate resources to teach the content
that is suggested by the Australian Curriculum documents.
Achievement standards
Early feedback from some of our secondary teachers indicates that the standards are higher than
those we are currently using to assess our students. E.g. That English is about a grade level higher
than in the Tas curriculum. This has implications for time allocation, implementation planning, and
reporting.
Assessment and reporting
Our teachers currently assess students against a continuum so that progress can be measured from
year to year. For students who consistently fail to meet the grade standard, an A-E system does not
communicate whether the student has improved. It is important that we do not adopt a simplistic
model and ensure that the information we give to students and parents is meaningful and supports
students in their learning.
Curriculum for the twenty-first century
Elaborations and support resources need to include more examples to show that this curriculum is
preparing students for the future. The use of new tools for communicating and sharing, a global
focus and inclusion of innovative, and creative ways of engaging students should be more evident in
the curriculum documents.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 151
2. SUBJECT SPECIFIC
Mathematics
Issues Strengths
Adequacy of explicit representation of
proficiency strands
Rigour and relevance
Unrealistic expectations in achievement
standards – generally in the secondary area
Opportunities for depth
Sequencing of some content. E.g. number
learning/counting, place value, time, space
and measurement, particularly in the earlier
years
Clarity of sequencing: some changes in
sequencing are considered as improving the
curriculum, e.g. fractions. This provides
enhanced simplicity and clarity
English
Issues Strengths
Some content has been identified as misplaced
or incorrectly sequenced (especially
punctuation, grammar, and phonics)
Teaching of literature in primary years
Some content requires stronger emphasis, e.g.
oral language, spelling, and visual literacy
Articulation of grammar
Achievement standards are generally useful
but need further clarity, detail and definition.
General clarity of content descriptions
Science
Issues Strengths
Science understanding strand: deemed too
content heavy
Focus on science inquiry skills
Content not adequately contemporary in scope:
a lack of focus on new technologies, emerging
sciences, and 21st century innovation
There is not a strong sustainability flavour in
the curriculum document. This could be related
to a lack of emphasis on decision-making and
ethical behaviour. A thread could be
incorporated into the science as a human
endeavour strand that requires students to
consider the impacts on society and the
environment of scientific advances
Inclusion of science as a human endeavour
Lack of sequential concept development Application to everyday life
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 152
History
Issues Strengths
Too much content, particularly at Years 7-10. Skills and methodologies are simple and clear
to understand
Contemporary history: a lack of emphasis on
contemporary and recent history was
identified, particularly in recent Asian history. A
more contemporary focus and language would
be favoured
Repetition has generally been avoided
The global perspective: There is some concern
that the global perspective is not strong
enough
Early and continued learning of history skills is
a step forward
3. CONSIDERATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION
The Department of Education is planning for implementation. The timeline will be informed by:
Feedback from the Tasmanian consultation sessions
Results of the curriculum mapping surveys that will show the extent of the differences and
commonalities
Feedback from the Tasmanian trial schools and the learning services
The capacity of our assessment and reporting infrastructure to adapt to and accommodate
a year-level curriculum and the time and resources required
Decisions made by MCEECDYA and timelines identified by other sectors and states
CONCLUSION
Feedback so far indicates that Tasmania would be well placed to trial or implement English and
mathematics and possibly science in 2011, subject to the factors identified above. In particular, the
Department of Education would need to be able to ensure a smooth transition to an assessment
and reporting model that is clear and meaningful for students, parents, and the community.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 153
Victoria (VIC)
The feedback from online survey VIC respondents was generally consistent with the feedback from
other states. The only unique issue identified concerned perceptions of a content heavy curriculum:
60% of VIC respondents expressed that the draft K-10 Australian Curriculum was
overcrowded (compared to an average 45% across the other states). This was the highest
proportion of negative feedback for this issue
Within the Victorian consultation forums, a strong preference for VELS was apparent with participants
noting that VELS is not simply a curriculum, but a curriculum, pedagogy, assessment, and reporting in
one coherent package.
Furthermore, VELS allowed for atypical structures and alternative middle-school specialist programs.
This allowed for a design of core and electives, which has a direct influence on the flexibility of
schools to cater for special needs students.
An overview of the recommendations from the Victorian response to the draft K-10 Australian
Curriculum is presented below. It was prepared by the Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority
(in partnership with and on behalf of the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development,
Catholic Education Commission Victoria, and Independent Schools Victoria).
K-10 Draft Australian Curriculum SUBMISSION
Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority in partnership with and on behalf of: Department of
Education and Early Childhood Development, Catholic Education Commission Victoria, Independent
Schools Victoria.
1. DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation 1
A new, revised Shape of the Australian Curriculum paper be developed
The first Shape paper was written when the then-NCB had responsibility for the development of the
curriculum for just four subjects. Now that ministers have agreed that the national curriculum
should be expanded to include the eight learning areas defined in the Melbourne Declaration,
general capabilities and cross-curriculum dimensions, there is a need for a new, revised Shape
paper.
Recommendation 2
The new Shape paper includes an explanation of the overall curriculum design model that provides
the framework for each of the subject curriculums and the general capabilities
We propose that consideration be given to the adoption of a ―double-helix‖ design model where the
first strand of the curriculum is the discipline-based subjects, and the second strand is the general
capabilities. The content of these strands is defined by the Australian Curriculum. It is at the school
level that teaching and learning programs are designed that integrate these two strands. Such a
design would address a strong element of the feedback, which was that the current documents do
not sufficiently reflect contemporary curriculum needs, in particular, that they do not place the
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 154
required emphasis on the critical role of the general capabilities.
Recommendation 3
The knowledge and skills and expected levels of achievement associated with the general
capabilities be defined and published
Separate scope and sequence statements and associated achievement standards (at three or more
stages of schooling) should be published for each of the general capabilities, either individually or
grouped (see p. 17-18).
Recommendation 4
The new Shape paper includes a clear statement about the purpose of the achievement standards
The achievement standards be revised, where necessary, to ensure they are focused on describing
the continuum of skill and concept development within a domain, and a statement be developed
that clarifies the expectations around the use of the achievement standards in relation to
assessment and reporting, including the use of the A-E reporting scale (see p. 16).
Recommendation 5
The new Shape paper includes a clear statement about the distinctive nature and purpose of
different stages of schooling and the associated necessary differentiation of the curriculum
We regard it as imperative that the following distinctions be clearly evident in the curriculum:
The priority to be given to literacy and numeracy, interpersonal development, the expressive
arts, and physical education in the early years of schooling. To support the implementation of
these priorities, achievement standards in the early years should be limited to English,
mathematics, the arts, health and physical education, and aspects of the general capabilities,
notably self-management/social competence
The provision of breadth of, and engagement in, learning in the upper-primary/lower-
secondary years
The provision of flexible learning pathways for students in Years 9 and 10
It is important that the new Shape paper includes illustrative examples of different ways in which
schools can structure teaching and learning programs at the different stages of schooling. These
examples could include integrated curriculum-based approaches in the early years, and programs in
the middle-secondary years that incorporate residential programs, work experience programs, and
other beyond-the-classroom activities.
Recommendation 6
The amount of content in history and science be reduced
Detailed suggestions are provided at p. 14, 70-71 (history) and p. 13, 55-57 (science). Prescribed
opportunities for choice of topics should be removed. Instead, the revised Shape paper should
make it clear that common content should, where relevant, be taught in relation to local or teacher-
designated contexts.
Recommendation 7
The current online format and presentation be reviewed
Three consistent themes in relation to the current online format were apparent through the
consultation.
The first was that the current design of content descriptions and content elaborations has led to
considerable confusion about the status of the content elaborations. While many teachers
welcomed the clarity provided by the content elaborations (often the content descriptions were
regarded as too cryptic and vague), teachers were unsure of whether they were expected to teach
any or all of the elaborations. We suggest that the format be adjusted so that the content
elaborations are located in a separate teaching resources section that is clearly distinct from the
curriculum.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 155
The second was that the current presentation of the curriculum as atomised dot points results in a
loss of a developmental perspective and a loss of the sense of larger purpose of the curriculum. One
alternative online format and layout is provided for each subject in Part B that illustrates how these
concerns might be addressed. This includes a clear statement of purpose for each year level that
provides a coherent overview of the purpose of the curriculum at that year level (see, for example,
alternative history format p. 70-71).
The third was that a consistent template should be used across all subjects, particularly in the
primary years.
Recommendation 8
The curriculum should explicitly be inclusive of EAL students and students with additional learning
needs
Statements that address the needs of students for whom English is an additional language and
students with additional learning needs should be included. Suggestions for the kind of statements
that might be included are at p. 25-26, and Appendices 1(a), 1(b), 2(a) and 2(b).
Recommendation 9
The links between the EYLF and the Australian curriculum be clearly set out
This can be done through a simple chart that demonstrates the continuity between the five learning
outcomes of the EYLF and the K-2 curriculum. An example is provided on p. 23.
Recommendation 10
The nomenclature used in the curriculum be revised
Consideration should be given to:
Replacing the term ―Year‖ with the word ―Level‖ in the headings, i.e. the headings change
from Year 1/2/3, etc. to Level 1/2/3, etc. This would, in part, address concerns that it is an
inflexible curriculum construct that does not cater for individual learning needs
Changing the designation of the first year of school from K to FY (First Year)
2. SUBJECT-SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
English
The structure of English should be changed so that the content descriptors are consistent
with the existing achievement standards, that is, organised by the modes of reading, writing,
speaking, and listening
There should be a clear statement that the literacy strand in English also serves as the
literacy general capability K-10. The statement should indicate that all teachers are
responsible for ensuring that students learn the vocabulary, comprehension strategies, and
text features associated with each subject area
The language strand should show development and use of grammar and syntactic features in
the spoken mode. Descriptors to show oral language development in ―grammatical‖ term,
should be included where appropriate, for instance, language features added in the Year 4
speaking and listening strand: ―… use verb tense to locate an action in time, subject-verb
agreement to relate actor and action, and noun-pronoun agreement;‖ ―… combine words
using conjunctions‖
The place of phonics should be strengthened in the early years. This would reflect the
approach taken in the Victorian Essential Learning Standards that gives greater attention to
phonics as one aspect of the teaching of reading that includes using semantic and syntactic
knowledge as well as phonemic knowledge
The place of phonemic knowledge should be strengthened through the later-primary and
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 156
secondary years. It is critically important that students continue to develop the skills of
vocabulary acquisition through these years
A comprehensive list of the metalanguage students are expected to acquire through the
English curriculum should be provided, together with agreed definitions of terms such as
―multimodal‖/‖digital text‖, ―hypertheme‖, ―form‖, ―text type,‖ and ―genre‖
The term ―visual grammar‖ should be removed
The distinction between ―reading‖ and ―viewing‖ should be clarified, and then the purpose
and extent of ―viewing‖ in the English curriculum should be revised. In this context, the
relative roles of the English curriculum and the arts curriculum in learning how to read visual
images/texts should be clarified
Mathematics
A separate ―working mathematically‖ strand should be introduced to replace the attempt in
the draft to integrate mathematical ―proficiencies‖ in the content descriptors. It should,
however, be clear that the learning content defined in this strand is intended to be integrated
across the other three strands, not taught as a stand-alone sequence
The weighting of the statistics and probability strand in relation to the other two current
strands should be reviewed to ensure more balanced weighting and that students have the
enabling mathematical knowledge and skills required from the other two strands
The geometry and measurement strand should be revised to ensure that students have the
enabling number skills required to support the set measurement skills
The content in K-4 should be revised so that levels of numeration for whole numbers are
increased as decimal numeration introduced at Year 4
The purpose of the current 10/10A distinction should be clarified. There should be a clear
statement of expectation that at Years 9 and 10, schools will provide a range of courses to
suit different student pathways
The following errors should be corrected:
Year K: subitising is a perceptual capability (the ability to recognise the size of a small set of
objects without counting)
Year K: students cannot be expected to read o‘clock times if they are only expected to be
able to understand numbers to 10
Year 2: sets are partitioned rather than numbers (unless the number is being regarded as a
set)
Year 3: commutativity is a structural property not a mental strategy
Year 7: students require a basic understanding of linear function to be able to study
association in bivariate data – this should be placed in Year 9 and/or Year 10
Year 8 and 9: Pythagoras theorem is used (without demonstration or proof) at Year 8, but
only proved at Year 9. The aspect of proof (i.e. the theorem nature) should be explored at the
same time as its application (in Year 9)
Science
Reduce the content in the science curriculum at the secondary level to an amount that can
be covered in depth and detail within an assumed maximum provision of 150 minutes per
week
Incorporate the nature and history of science components in the science as a human
endeavour strand into the science knowledge strand. Relocate the remaining content in the
science as a human endeavour strand into the content elaborations and supporting
resources
Clearly identify the sequential and coherent development of key science concepts at a level
of sophistication appropriate to each year level
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 157
Delete topics from the science curriculum that overlap with the content of other subjects.
Sequence any unavoidable overlap in a coordinated manner and ensure that common topics
are considered from different contexts
Modify the underlying theme, form and function for Years 7-10, to ―matter, form and
function‖ to emphasise the key concept that form and function of organisms and objects is
ultimately dependent on the way in which matter combines
Reduce duplication and inconsistency in the science inquiry skills strand by condensing and
reconceptualising the sub-strands
More clearly articulate in the rationale the complex nature of science as a way of knowing
Redraft the strand descriptors and elaborations into succinct statements that are consistent
with the aims of the curriculum, clearly identify the key understandings that students are to
develop, and indicate the level of cognitive demand
Provide support material to guide the development of teaching and learning programs that
demonstrates the inter-relationship between the strands, the interdisciplinary nature of
contemporary science and the way this is evident in the emerging sciences
History
Reduce the amount of content in the knowledge and understanding strand in Years 7-10 as
follows:
- Delete the overviews from Years 7-10. Instead, provide a proper context for learning at
that year level in the preface by providing a more complete overview of the learning, the
key concepts to be taught and key inquiry questions
- Delete what is history? as a separate depth study at Year 7. Most of this essential
learning is included in the skills strand at every level from K and archaeological content
can be included in the knowledge and understanding strand of depth studies at Year 7
- Delete school-developed studies in Years 7-9. These are unnecessary in an ―essential
learning‖ curriculum and will free up time for the essentials
- Delete the Asia topic from Year 9 and the World War I topic from Year 10. Instead,
include Gallipoli at Year 9 and post World War II content at Year 10
Reduce the amount of content at Years 4-6 as follows:
- At Year 4, delete point 4 (early European and Asian contact) and point 5 (content on
navigators exploring ―other parts of the world‖)
- At Year 5, delete the comparative politics content at Year 5 (which is inconsistent with
national agreement on civics learning) and instead keep the focus on the development
of democracy in Australia
- At Year 6, reduce the first topic ―Australia, the British Empire, and Asia‖ to a single
focus on Australia and Asia (the British Empire has already been covered at Year 5)
Revise the introduction to the history curriculum to include:
- a sequence of the key concepts and ideas which are developed in the history
curriculum. These should then be incorporated in the Skills strand at the appropriate
year level
- A development continuum of historical skills that explains the conceptual and structural
basis of this strand, that is, that the skills are presented in two-year bands (a three year
band at K-3) and that they represent a developmental sequence of the skills that
underpin the discipline of history
Revise the achievement standards to ensure that they use taxonomic language that is
consistent with the content strands
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 158
Western Australia (WA)
The feedback from online survey WA respondents was aligned with the feedback from other states.
No unique issues were identified via this medium.
Forum participants in Western Australia expressed concerns around the transition from primary to
secondary, as this is currently not uniform across the state – i.e. Year 7 can be in primary or
secondary school. This creates problems for resourcing, timetabling, and the necessity of up-skilling
non-specialist teachers.
A lack of connection and reference to the Early Year Learning Framework was regarded as a negative
change in the new curriculum, as compared to the Western Australian curriculum.
Access to the online curriculum was a source of concern. Schools and teachers do not always have
internet access or the skills required to access the curriculum, particularly in remote schools.
An overview of the Western Australian response to the draft K-10 Australian Curriculum, prepared by
the Government of WA Curriculum Council, is presented below.
K-10 Draft Australian Curriculum SUBMISSION
Curriculum Council of WA
This submission from the Curriculum Council of WA provides an overview of feedback from Western
Australian independent, Catholic, and Department of Education schools.
An Australian Curriculum provides the opportunity for an inclusive education for all young
Australians. The declaration sets an expectation that an Australian Curriculum would be inclusive of
all students. This has not been achieved in the draft. The Australian Curriculum must explicitly
embrace the principle of inclusivity.
Principles of inclusive practice should be more evident in the rationale to all learning areas. ACARA
identifies a number of student groups as requiring support through ―adjustments‖ to the curriculum.
Principles of inclusive practice would be more evident if the nature and scope of adjustments for
these students were clearly outlined. It is pleasing that ACARA has acknowledged this and is
establishing a special needs learning working group.
The Australian Curriculum should acknowledge explicitly that teachers may need to interpret and
differentiate the content and present it according to their students‘ needs. This will be the first
mandated curriculum in Western Australia for many years that specifies what will be taught in each
year. As a consequence, ACARA is asked to provide advice for teachers on the inter-connectedness
and consistency within and across strands and year levels.
Clarity on scoping the whole curriculum, pre-primary to Year 12, and how learning areas may be
included across the phases of schooling is now required to support schools and teachers to plan for
implementation. It is pleasing to see that this is being considered at the June ministerial council
meeting. The outcome of that meeting needs to be available to schools across Australia as soon as
practicable.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 159
Western Australia supports the ACARA initiative to ensure the Australian Curriculum will align more
closely with the Early Years Learning Framework.
The achievement standards need to be reviewed in the light of analytic evidence from student data.
The WA Department of Education response provides details of this. In addition, they need to be re-
worked to improve their clarity, coherence, and sequencing.
The pitch of the achievement standards described as ―satisfactory‖ may initially be too challenging
for many students. It is recommended that ACARA provides a full range of annotated work samples
to illustrate and exemplify the standards.
While the provision of an online curriculum is seen as a strength of the national curriculum, many
teachers found aspects of the curriculum such as the elaborations, resources, and work samples
difficult to access. All resources, including year-level and integrated sample programs, and cross-
curricular references to support materials must be developed and easily accessible when the
Australian Curriculum is presented to teachers.
The following learning area responses provide an overview of the survey feedback in Attachment 3.
English Learning Area Overview
The place of literature and its emphasis in the primary years is appropriate. The fore-grounding of
grammar as part of the language strand is an important addition, provided that the focus on
grammar is made explicit as necessary for improving students‘ writing and not as an end in itself.
These areas may need time and professional development to be taught effectively.
Despite these positive features, there are concerns:
Due to the lack of clarity across and between the content points and the strands, teachers
may ―tick the content point‖ when planning for learning. ACARA is asked to address this
concern by providing an explicit preface to each year level supported by appropriate scope
and sequence documents. This additional information would also support teachers in
making sense of how the standards relate to the language, literacy, and literature strands
around which the curriculum is structured. The WA Department of Education submission
has provided an example of this
The degree of specificity in content and elaborations varies from clearly targeted to quite
open. The placement of content in some years and its absence in others does not appear
logical. The developmental nature and sequence of some content (especially of language
conventions) is not clear or explicit. ACARA is asked to review the specificity and placement
of content in all years. Some elaborations, grammar for example, provide content clarity.
Some provide a sense of the pitch appropriate to the year level. Others are vague and not
obviously linked to the content. These need to be reviewed to ensure greater consistency
The draft curriculum does not clarify how the ―modes of language‖ structure used for the
achievement standards relates to the content strands. ACARA needs to provide explicit
advice on this
Other concerns include:
The diminished importance of viewing, which is subsumed into reading. Viewing requires
additional skills and processes that need to be explicitly taught. While acknowledging that
this point may be particular to Western Australia, ACARA is asked to consider it carefully
ACARA is asked to recognise the critical role of oral language and listening in language
development and give it greater emphasis in all phases. The focus on oral language in the
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 160
draft curriculum is more on presentations than on the development of explicit speaking and
listening skills and processes
The achievement standards are ambiguous and not sequenced or pitched appropriately –
ACARA is asked to review these
Finally, the draft curriculum makes an assumption that Standard Australian English (―SAE‖) is the
way students make meaning and that English dialect speakers, particularly speakers of aboriginal
English and ESL learners, bring a deficit rather than a richness/complexity to the learning of the
content. ACARA is asked to provide specific advice for teachers on this question. It is a crucial issue
for teachers in remote community schools and other schools with significant aboriginal or second
language student enrolment.
History learning area overview
While there are some areas of content that may be new to teachers, the pre-primary to Year 10
national history curriculum is consistent with the basic skills and understandings in the investigation,
communication and participation and time, continuity and change strands of the society and
environment learning area in the curriculum framework.
The inclusion of the inquiry approach is indicative of a world-class history curriculum. The focus on
world history through an Australian lens is appropriate. Students can see their own history as part of
larger movements and the impact of external forces on Australia.
Other strengths include:
Overcoming the problem of repetition of certain contexts year after year. While there is
partial overlap of time period, there is a change of emphasis and focus
The general capabilities and cross-curricular dimensions may help teachers plan integration
of learning areas, particularly in the primary years
Despite these positive features, the following concerns need to be addressed by ACARA prior to
finalisation of the history curriculum:
Skills are the essential driver of the history curriculum and need to be better scoped and
sequenced within the phase and across the phases of schooling
The contemporary focus on Asian and indigenous perspectives needs to be strengthened to
support student understanding of how historical understandings relate to their immediate
world
There are too many depth studies. There is an unresolved lack of clarity between the
coverage of content points and the provision of depth in ―depth studies‖. This is generally
not clarified by the elaborations because they are too complex. The elaborations need to be
brief statements followed by examples
The draft curriculum is overcrowded with too much content. This reduces the flexibility for
teachers to contextualise the curriculum for different student cohorts – it is recommended
that ACARA reviews the amount of content, particularly in Years 7-10
Finally, the achievement standards may be set too high and should be reviewed by ACARA. They
need to be concrete with clear criteria that derive naturally from annotated student work samples.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 161
Mathematics learning area overview
The use of a common curriculum and language to discuss content and standards in mathematics
may be beneficial.
The content strands of number and algebra, statistics and probability, and measurement and
geometry are familiar to Western Australian teachers. Likewise, the proficiency strands, which
replace the working mathematically strand from the curriculum framework are familiar. However, the
potential of the proficiency strand is not fully developed in either the content statements or the
elaborations. ACARA is asked to provide resource materials to further support teacher planning.
It is recommended that ACARA includes problem solving references throughout the elaborations.
This would reinforce the need for them to be integral to teaching and learning and not simply as an
assessment strategy at the conclusion to a topic.
There are many fundamental differences in placement and emphases of content between the
Australian Curriculum and the current Western Australian curriculum. While the placement of some
content has the potential to challenge and engage students, there is also the risk that some
concepts are introduced before some students are ready for their complexity. For example, the early
and inadequate introduction of additional algebra and number concepts in Year 7 has the potential
to create misunderstandings in that year group in Western Australia. Other placements show a ―big
leap‖ in content knowledge from the previous year, such as the understanding of place value to
1000 in Year 2 or the reference to formal proofs in a Year 9 elaboration.
ACARA is asked to review the sequencing of content with particular reference to students‘ readiness
to learn these concepts.
Similarly, ACARA needs to review the grouping of content areas so they are consistent across the
continuum (e.g. ―counting and numeration‖ becomes ―place value and numeration‖).
ACARA needs to develop a scope and sequence chart to show how concepts are developed
consistently from pre-primary to Year 10.
Finally the articulation of the achievement standards is highlighted as an area of concern because:
The achievement standards do not appear to relate well to the content statements and
elaborations
The achievement standards are generally pitched beyond the capability of the C-grade
student
The achievement standards need to be evaluated independently to ensure they are
correctly pitched and
Exemplification of other grades using work samples is required
As with the other learning areas, ACARA needs to carefully review and simplify the achievement
standards in the light of realistic student exemplars so they are more usable.
Science learning area overview
While the draft science curriculum incorporates science inquiry skills that are both comprehensive
and well articulated, the draft curriculum is not contemporary and does not exemplify best practice
in science. This needs to be addressed by ACARA.
Relevant WA local-context programs could be ignored because of the vast amount of content. It
appears that pre-primary to Year 6 curriculum has ignored the primary connections research
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 162
regarding age appropriateness content. ACARA is asked to carefully review the placement of content
in light of this feedback.
There is no explicitly stated and conceptually coherent framework for developing the strands across
the years, particularly for science understanding. This fundamental point needs to be addressed by
ACARA.
In addition, there is a ―dumbing down‖ of the quantitative aspects of science. The curriculum needs
to clarify the potential for links to other learning areas, especially mathematics. For example, there is
a significant concern at the apparent loss of the quantitative elements of science. Measurement and
its computational derivatives are essential process skills in science, and yet, are absent even from
the Years 9–10 curriculum. This needs to be explicitly addressed by ACARA.
The content sequence, elaborations and structure of the curriculum in the early years phase needs
refinement. ACARA needs to ensure that the overview addresses important issues such as
structured play, integration, and language development in science. The focus of these early years
should be on guiding children in developing skills rather than understanding complex content
because there is too much variation in maturity and skills at this stage.
The content elaborations are not always helpful because they do not derive directly from the content.
Often they relate more to pedagogy or are more complex than the understanding they are intended
to clarify. ACARA needs to address this.
The pitch of the achievement standards is often too high (based on empirical data from national and
state testing). The description of key skills and content required for a ―C‖ grade is vague and this
standard may be difficult for teachers to judge. The standard weightings reflect an over emphasis on
science inquiry skills to the detriment of the science understanding particularly. The science as a
human endeavour descriptions need to be made measurable. ACARA needs to provide advice on the
relative focus on each of the strands, and a range of student exemplars that illustrate achievement
of each strand needs to be available.
Further work is needed by ACARA on the explicit inclusion of indigenous perspectives throughout the
document. The draft does not clearly define what indigenous perspectives means. By encouraging
students to compare modern science with that of a traditional ancient culture, there is a danger that
indigenous science and perspectives may be seen by students as unsophisticated.
Finally, there is a need for differentiated pathways in Years 9 and 10. As this has not been built into
the curriculum structure, ACARA needs to provide a range of sample programs that illustrate how
this can be achieved.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 163
9. Other Feedback: Non-curriculum Issues
When reviewing the consultation feedback, a number of issues outside of the curriculum were
categorised as recurrent trends. It should be noted that these were issues primarily identified in
the Peak Body submissions and consultation portal data. A summary of these issues follows.
Professional development
There is concern that there will be a lack of professional development for teachers with
limited knowledge to adequately teach new content
Feedback indicated that in schools in which Year 7 is a primary year, teachers would need a
significant amount of professional development in order to understand the content they will
be required to teach
Respondents also noted that there will need to be professional development regarding the
use of the online curriculum
“There seems to be a big jump in the knowledge required by Year 7 teachers in primary
schools. The history and science curricula seem to require a more specialist type of
knowledge.”
School-based personnel, Queensland
“Content is familiar, but its sequence is unfamiliar and requires professional
development to assist in programming with/approaching the document.”
State forum, West Australia
Resourcing requirements
There is concern that many schools are unable to rely on regular access to the internet, which
necessitates additional resources for those schools
Feedback was also received indicating that resources and support may be required in
delivering the science curriculum. Primary schools, smaller schools, and regional schools
were identified as possibly requiring additional resources, e.g. in the form of science
laboratories
Respondents also noted that due to the pitch of Year 7 content, which seen as at the high
school level, primary schools that encompass Year 7 will need additional resources to cover
more advanced content
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 164
“It would seem, that based on the content, particularly science and history, that those of
us in states where Year 7 is still primary-school based, will be hugely disadvantaged in
terms of available resources, timetabling, and specialist teachers.”
School-based personnel, Western Australia
“Lack of broadband for remote, rural, and some city schools.”
State forum, Western Australia
Assessment guidelines
Respondents noted that the Australian Curriculum is not a truly national document if there
are no national assessment guidelines. If states base assessment on their interpretation of
content, then there will not be uniformity across the country
Feedback also indicated that there was confusion around the achievement standards.
Respondents noted that there are no guidelines for interpretation of the A-E assessment
format and standards, and this will be a source of confusion for teachers
“We are concerned that no assessment exists in the draft. We are not prepared to teach
without to these subjects without knowing the assessment. We are concerned about the
reporting system. The reports need to be the same across the country. These need to be
set in place before we begin teaching to this curriculum. We need to be able to mark
students up or down – not just at the year level the child 'should' be.”
School-based personnel, Victoria
“Do these describe a „C‟ level (that's what we were told at the recent QSA Conference)?
This needs to be articulated VERY clearly, if that is the case. Actually, what is needed are
achievement standards from A-E, accompanied by annotated work samples for each of
these standards to really assist teachers as they develop assessment tasks, participate in
moderation, and prepare report cards."
School-based personnel, Queensland
Composite classes
There is concern that teachers will not be able to adapt the content appropriately for
composite classes (containing more than one year level) due to the year-level based
structure. As content does not necessarily follow on from year to year, there is little scope for
accommodating students at different levels within the one class
Composite classes also present problems regarding assessment as the achievement
standards do not always build on each other from year to year, so levels can‘t be assessed
concurrently
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 165
“I feel that the national curriculum has not considered schools that comprise of
composite classes. Will teachers be expected to teach two completely different topics to
their two year levels? NOT POSSIBLE!”
School-based personnel, South Australia
“The greatest problem is that it is written in grades, not stages. Most small schools
(which is most schools in regional areas) have composite classes. If the curriculum is
released in single grades, and the testing schedule, i.e. NAPLAN, school certificate, etc. is
driven on a grade basis, it will make it virtually impossible to operate small schools
economically. This does not just affect infants/primary, it affects high school as well. To
de-stage the curriculum will cause enormous problem”
School-based personnel, New South Wales
Kindergarten
Feedback indicated there was concern around the starting age of primary school as this
differs from state to state. There needs to be national uniformity, otherwise, younger students
will be developmentally disadvantaged
Respondents also raised concerns about the name of Kindergarten, as this is likely to cause
confusion in many states. There are currently many names for this year of schooling (e.g.
Prep, Reception) and it is not compulsory in all states
“Kindergarten, as a term, is confusing with Prep in national documents.”
State forum, Victoria
“How would we know what a world-class curriculum looks like? If this is to be a national
curriculum, will the issue of a common starting age be addressed so all states are
consistent?”
Western Australia
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 166
10. School Trial Feedback – Online Pilot Survey
Feedback from the school trial online pilot survey indicated mixed reactions to the functionality of the
Australian Curriculum Consultation Portal. While feedback was largely positive, a number of critical
themes emerged from the comments of the respondents regarding the:
Home page
LEARN link
EXPLORE link
The website in general
Home page:
The majority of respondents reacted favourably to the home page, citing the simplicity and ease of
navigation as positive.
The positive elements of the home page as identified by respondents were:
1. Ease of navigation
2. Links to resources
3. Clarity of the layout
Respondents identified, however, a number of issues affecting the functionality of the home page,
including the density of the information, length and quality of the video, and the plain and colourless
presentation.
Suggestions for improving the home page included:
Improving the colours of the layout
Reducing the length and scope of the video
Enhancing the coherency of the diagrams
LEARN link:
The LEARN link was positively received by respondents, in general, with respondents noting that the
relevant information was presented clearly and functionally.
The positive elements of the LEARN link as identified by respondents were:
1. The clear and simple presentation of information
2. The usefulness of the glossary
3. Ease of navigation
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 167
However, a number of areas for improvement were identified by respondents, including the
accessibility of some content and the amount and density of text.
Suggestions for improving the LEARN link included:
Increasing links with other areas of the website
Organising information in a more engaging format
Reducing the volume of text
EXPLORE link:
In general, the EXPLORE link was regarded positively by respondents. It contains useful information
and clearly presents the content descriptors.
The positive elements of the EXPLORE link as identified by respondents were:
1. The ability to filter information
2. The comprehensive nature of the content
3. The ability to make comparisons between year levels
Respondents identified however a number of areas for improvement surrounding the usability of the
EXPLORE link section of the website.
Suggestions for improving the LEARN link included:
Increasing ease of access to the elaborations
Using colours that are more distinguishable from one another
Allowing filtering options across year levels
General feedback:
Feedback from the school trial online pilot survey indicated a positive general reaction to the website.
Respondents reacted well to the user-friendly presentation of the website in general, indicating that it
gives a good overall understanding of the content. The glossary was also considered a useful and
valuable resource.
Overall, the most valued aspect of the website was the ability to customise the information on the
website using the search, dashboard, and filters. In particular, the filtering option was considered the
most useful.
There were, however, a number of issues that respondents regarded as significant and in need of
improvement. Issues relating to the functionality of the website as identified by respondents included:
1. Time consuming to navigate
2. Overwhelming amount of content
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 168
3. Plain and lacklustre presentation
4. Incoherent diagrams
Several suggestions were put forward as to how the website could be improved. In terms of layout,
having distinctive colours and pictures was suggested to make the page more engaging and
appealing to users. Organising content more coherently through the use of text boxes was also
suggested, while dot points were favoured over large sections of text.
Additionally, it was suggested that the website would benefit from improved access to the
elaborations, links to resources, a help/FAQ area, and the ability to filter with more specificity.
Respondents also noted that there were recurring issues with registering and logging on to the
website.
Overall, feedback from the school trial online pilot survey indicates a perception that most teachers
will respond positively to the way information is presented on the website. However, respondents
noted that the issues outlined in this section are also likely to be of concern to other teachers, and
that they will need time to feel comfortable with the online format. It was also noted that it might not
be realistic to assume teachers would have regular access to the website.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 169
11. Conclusion
In developing the Australian Curriculum, a comprehensive consultation processes was undertaken
between March and June 2010. A collaborative approach with key stakeholders and the general public
sought feedback on the draft national curriculum for English, mathematics, science, and history (K-10).
Multiple consultation media, including an online survey, State/Territory and national consultation forums,
and school trial activities uncovered both consistent general feedback across the curriculum, and specific
strengths and issues related to the four learning areas.
A review of the consolidated feedback has identified a number of key strengths of the draft Australian
Curriculum (K-10). In general, stakeholders indicated that across the curriculum, there is clarity around the
foundation and direction of the curriculum, supported by the rationale and aims that frame each learning
area. There was strong support for such a national document and for a consistent approach to early years,
primary, and secondary education. In supporting the Australian Curriculum, the consultation website was
generally considered user friendly and easy to navigate. Depending on access to the internet, feedback
revealed that all parts of the curriculum can be easily accessed. In addition to these strengths,
consultation feedback indicated that the general capabilities (specifically literacy, numeracy, ICT) and
cross-curriculum dimensions (indigenous history and culture, Asia and Australia‘s engagement with Asia,
and sustainability) were clearly evident in the draft curriculum.
A number of key challenges and issues were also identified across the K—10 draft national curriculum.
There was strong feedback around the ability of the draft national curriculum to cater for students with
diverse and special needs. Concerns were expressed across all learning areas that the curriculum does not
take into account all students, nor allows teachers the flexibility required in teaching students with diverse
learning abilities, from diverse backgrounds, and from regional areas. In particular, gifted students, ESL
students, students with learning difficulties or disabilities, and those from low socio-economic backgrounds
were considered to be disadvantaged by the draft curriculum.
The draft Australian Curriculum was also considered content heavy, with consistent feedback highlighting
overcrowding across the curriculum. It was thought that this may detract from the depth and quality of
understanding achievable. Furthermore, the need for clearer achievement standards that specify the depth
of what students are expected to learn at each year level was consistently raised. There were also repeated
calls for a broader range of work samples to exemplify the standards (A-E).
Overall, the consolidated findings of all submissions and feedback indicate that further refinement of the
draft Australian Curriculum (K-10) would be supported by key stakeholders and the Australian public.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 170
Appendices
Appendix A. Online Survey (K-10)
Survey Draft K-10 Australian Curriculum
Introduction
The purpose of this survey is to enable individuals and groups to provide both broad and specific feedback to the draft Australian Curriculum K-10. You can complete this survey in addition to, or instead of, providing direct feedback while viewing the curriculum in the Explore tab. Broad feedback on the curriculum is sought in relation to:
nt placement and sequence
More specific feedback on the curriculum is sought in relation to:
e curriculum
-curriculum dimensions
In each section, you are asked to respond to statements about aspects of the draft curriculum and, if you wish, add specific comments and attach additional notes. The K–10 consultation website officially closes on 23 May 2010. Note: This site and the relevant surveys are intended to gather feedback on the draft Australian Curriculum (K–10) in relation to English, mathematics, history and science. It can be completed by an individual or by a group of people e.g. an association or a school authority. Please note that ACARA may make your feedback publicly available during the consultation process. Please visit the terms and conditions of the website at http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/Home/Copyright.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 171
Prerequisites and feedback focus Unless otherwise specified, it is expected that you will be completing this survey on your own behalf. If you are providing a group or institution response (e.g. university faculty, school, association, curriculum authority), please indicate the name of the group or institution below: Group/institution name: My feedback will relate to: Learning areas (check appropriate)
English History Mathematics Science
All learning areas Year level (check appropriate)
K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I have reviewed the Learn section of the Consultation Portal I have watched the video 'An Introduction to the Australian Curriculum' I have reviewed the Explore section of the Consultation Portal
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 172
Content descriptions The draft content descriptions: 1 are clear and unambiguous, i.e. explaining in understandable language what is to be taught 2 are coherent, i.e. clearly articulated across strands and year levels 3 are sequenced appropriately, i.e. in an order consistent with your experience 4 are pitched appropriately, i.e. sufficiently challenging for students at each year Level 5 cover the important content for this learning area 6 Please identify any content that you believe should be included in the Australian Curriculum that is not currently, and give reasons for your selection: 7 Please identify any content that you believe should not be included in the Australian Curriculum that is currently included, and give reasons for your selection: 8 Please provide any additional comments you would like to make about the content descriptions:
Content elaborations
Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly agree disagree
The draft content elaborations: 9 illustrate the content descriptions effectively 10 illustrate the content descriptions sufficiently 11 are clear and unambiguous 12 are relevant and appropriate illustrations 13 How can the elaborations be further improved to better illustrate the content descriptions?
Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly agree disagree
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 173
Achievement standards The draft achievement standards are: 14 clear and unambiguous, i.e. explaining in understandable language what students are expected to learn 15 coherent, i.e. clearly articulate across year levels 16 sequenced appropriately, i.e. in an order consistent with your experience 17 pitched appropriately, i.e. sufficiently challenging for students at each year level 18 Please provide any other comments you would like to make about the draft achievement standards: 19 The annotated work samples help illustrate and exemplify the achievement Standards 20 How can the work samples be improved so that they better illustrate and exemplify the achievement standards?
Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly agree disagree
Structure of the curriculum The draft structure of the curriculum: 21 The organisation of the learning area(s) provides a coherent view of the key elements and features of the curriculum 22 Please provide any suggestions you have for improvements to the organisation of the learning area(s): 23 The content descriptions together with the achievement standards provide clarity about the depth of teaching and learning required 24 Please provide any further comments: 25 The Rationale and Aims of the learning area(s) provide a clear foundation and direction for the curriculum. 26 Please explain your response:
Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly agree disagree
General capabilities
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 174
The following general capabilities are clearly evident in the content descriptions and achievement standards: 27 Literacy 28 Numeracy 29 Information and communication technologies 30 Thinking skills 31 Creativity 32 Self-management 33 Teamwork 34 Intercultural understanding 35 Ethical behaviour 36 Social competence 37 Please provide any further comments you would like to make on the incorporation of general capabilities into the Australian Curriculum:
Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly agree disagree
Cross-curriculum dimensions The following cross-curriculum dimensions are clearly evident in the content descriptions: 38 Indigenous history and culture 39 A commitment to sustainability 40 Asia and Australia's engagement with Asia 41 Please provide any further comments you would like to make on the incorporation of the cross-curriculum dimensions into the Australian Curriculum:
Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly agree disagree
Digital layout
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 175
Digital layout: 42 The Australian Curriculum consultation website is easy to navigate. 43 All parts of the draft Australian Curriculum can be easily accessed on the website. 44 How can the layout of the Australian Curriculum consultation website be improved to enable easier access and navigation?
Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly agree disagree
World class curriculum The draft K–10 Australian Curriculum: 45 sets challenging yet realistic standards 46 enables the pursuit of in-depth teaching and learning 47 takes into account available evidence about the nature of the learner 48 takes into account the needs of all students 49 enables teachers to cater for developmental diversity 50 is not overcrowded 51 provides coherence and continuity across the stages of schooling 52 reflects a world class curriculum 53 Please provide any further comments you have on the draft Australian Curriculum (e.g. strengths, priority areas for improvement):
Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly agree disagree
Appendix B. Qualitative/Thematic Analysis Code Book
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 176
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 177
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 178
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 179
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 180
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 181
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 182
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 183
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 184
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 185
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 186
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 187
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 188
Appendix C. State and Territory Forum Questions – Learning
Area
LEARNING AREA
Thank you for your participation in the ACARA consultation forum. ACARA will be conducting similar forums in each state and territory to gather feedback on the draft K-10 curriculum during March and April.
Through the consultation process, feedback will be gathered that will inform decisions on any amendments or refinements to the draft Australian Curriculum as it is developed into a final Australian Curriculum.
Instructions
Please complete this form if your group are discussing:
a) A learning area in general (e.g. English, Maths, Science or History)
b) A learning area in a particular year (e.g. K-2 English, 3-6 Maths etc.)
This feedback form poses a number of statements which require rating on a 4 point likert scale,
where 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree and 4 = strongly agree. The N/C rating
indicates that you have no comment because you have not considered that part of the curriculum
or have no view. It is assumed that this rating will not be needed. To select a rating, please
double click on the check box and select „checked‟ under default value.
In addition to the rating scale questions, a number of open ended questions will also be posed.
Please type your responses into this document using the number of lines as a guide to
suggested word length.
Please consult as a group before providing a representative response to each question. Each
group is to complete only one feedback form.
Focus Group Information
State:
__________________
Learning area:
__________________
Stage of schooling (if applicable, do not fill in if you are discussing a learning area in general):
__________________
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 189
Rationale, aims and organisation of the learning area
Please rate and provide comments on the following:
1. The “rationale” provides clarity about the position and importance of the learning area in the whole curriculum
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 N/C
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2. The “aims” of the learning area are clear and understandable
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 N/C
3. The ”aims” of the learning area are appropriate for K-10 Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 N/C
4. The “aims” of the learning area relate well to the overall content Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 N/C
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 190
5. The “organisation” of the learning area provides a coherent view of the key elements and
features of the curriculum
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 N/C
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Key strengths and issues relating to the content of this learning area
Please rate and provide comments on the following:
6. The learning area content clearly represents the important content that all young Australians should learn
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 N/C
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7. The content is familiar and similar to what is currently expected in our State/Territory curriculum
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 N/C
8. The placement and sequencing of content is appropriate across the year levels
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 N/C
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 191
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
9. The content at each year level is coherent across the strands
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 N/C
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
10. The content at each year level is manageable and able to be taught in depth and within the time available
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 N/C
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 192
Key strengths and issues relating to the achievement standards of this
learning area
Please rate and provide comments on the following:
11. The achievement standards clearly describe the expected quality of learning for each year level
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 N/C
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
12. The achievement standard at each year level represents the learning you would expect, having taught the content for that year
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 N/C
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
13. You could confidently assess student achievement of these standards Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 N/C
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 193
14. The format of the annotated work samples is useful in illustrating the quality of expected
student learning at that year level Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 N/C
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 194
Online Format
Please rate and provide comments on the following:
15. The online format is user-friendly and easy to navigate Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 N/C
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
16. All parts of the Australian Curriculum can be easily accessed on the website
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 N/C
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
17. How could the website be improved?
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 195
Open ended questions – Overall Strengths and Challenges
18. What do you perceive are the overall strengths in the curriculum for this learning area?
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
19. What are the overall challenges or issues you perceive in the curriculum for this learning
area?
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 196
Appendix D. State and Territory Forum Questions – Stage of
Schooling
STAGE OF SCHOOLING
Thank you for your participation in the ACARA consultation forum. ACARA will be conducting similar forums in each state and territory to gather feedback on the draft K-10 curriculum during March and April.
Through the consultation process, feedback will be gathered that will inform decisions on any amendments or refinements to the draft Australian Curriculum as it is developed into a final Australian Curriculum.
Instructions
Please complete this form if your group are discussing:
a) A stage of schooling in general only (e.g. K-2, 3-6, 7 -10)
This feedback form poses a number of statements which require rating on a 4 point likert scale,
where 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree and 4 = strongly agree. The N/C rating
indicates that you have no comment because you have not considered that part of the curriculum
or have no view. It is assumed that this rating will not be needed. To select a rating, please
double click on the check box and select „checked‟ under default value.
In addition to the rating scale questions, a number of open ended questions will also be posed.
Please type your responses into this document using the number of lines as a guide to
suggested word length.
Please consult as a group before providing a representative response to each question. Each
group is to complete only one feedback form.
Focus Group Information
State:
__________________
Stage of schooling:
__________________
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 197
Key strengths and issues relating to English, Maths, Science and History for
your schooling stage
Please rate and provide comments on the following:
1. There is coherence and consistency in the curriculum across learning areas (for example, in the
use of language / terminology)
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 N/C
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2. The curriculum incorporates the necessary learning for a 21st century curriculum (for example,
content that is contemporary, relevant and futures-oriented)
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 N/C
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3. The general capabilities are adequately addressed
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 N/C
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 198
4. The cross curriculum dimensions are adequately addressed
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 N/C
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5. The curriculum is inclusive of the range of learners at this stage of schooling
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 N/C
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
6. The curriculum adequately takes into account key transition points (for example, it appropriately
links with early childhood learning and between primary and secondary education) at this stage of
schooling
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 N/C
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7. The Australian Curriculum allows for teachers to take local needs and contexts into account
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 N/C
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 199
___________________________________________________________________
8. What do you perceive are the key differences between the Australian Curriculum and existing state
and territory curricula?
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
9. What are possible implications for your State/Territory in the implementation of the curriculum in
these four learning areas (for example, regarding resourcing and professional development
requirements)?
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 200
Online Format
Please rate and provide comments on the following:
10. The online format is user-friendly and easy to navigate
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 N/C
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
11. All parts of the Australian Curriculum can be easily accessed on the website
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 N/C
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
12. There are no significant barriers to teachers using the online format
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 N/C
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 201
Appendix E. National Forum Workshop Recording Form –
English
Issue 1: Some content has been identified as misplaced or incorrectly sequenced (especially
punctuation, grammar and phonics).
Groups;
- K-2/3 – punctuation, grammar, phonics
- 3-6/7 – punctuation, grammar
- 7/8-10 – punctuation, grammar
Issue 2: A lack of coherence across the curriculum has been identified.
Groups;
- K-10
Issue 3: Some content requires stronger emphasis e.g. oral language, spelling and visual literacy.
Groups
- K-10
Issue 4: (K-2) There has been some feedback that K level is too ambitious and that play-based
learning should be more of a focus
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 202
Appendix F. National Forum Workshop Recording Form – History
Issue1: Contemporary History: A lack of emphasis on contemporary and recent history was identified,
particularly in recent Asian history. A more contemporary focus would be favoured, as would
contemporary language. For example, the term ―new Australians‖ is not well-received
Issue 2: The global perspective: There is some concern that the global perspective is not strong
enough and is weakened by an overemphasis on Asia. However, some respondents found the
increased focus on the Asian perspective is very positive.
Issue 3: Indigenous perspective: There were opinions about the greater emphasis on the Indigenous
perspective. Many respondents thought that the stronger focus was positive and could even be
strengthened further. Conversely, some thought there was a repetitive over-emphasis at the expense
of other cultural perspectives.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 203
Appendix G. National Forum Workshop Recording Form –
Mathematics
Issue 1: Extent of Statistics content
Issue 2: Inconsistencies in geometry and algebra content; some algebra too advanced for teachers
with a non-maths background – appears too early, when students are not ready for it. Conflicting
views about depths of algebra in years 9-10.
Issue 3: Geometry in early years
Issue 4: Greater focus needed on financial literacy / mathematics
Issue 5: Inappropriate content placement – content too light K-5, too demanding in middle years, too
broad in years 6-8 allow for sufficient depths, doesn‘t allow for primary school transition.
Issue 6: Practicality – lack of focus on problem solving and mathematics that are applicable.
Issue 7: Sequencing concerns – relation to number learning/counting, place value, time, space and
measurement, particularly in the earlier years
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 204
Appendix H. National Forum Workshop Recording Form –
Science
Issue 1: Science understanding strand: deemed too content heavy. What should stay? What should
go?
Issue 2: Content not adequately contemporary in scope: a lack of focus on new technologies,
emerging science and 21st century innovation has been identified; more forward thinking content was
recommended, with the inclusions of (for example) nanotechnologies, biotechnology, etc. Where and
how can these be addressed in the curriculum?
Issue 3: Content overlap with other learning areas: an overemphasis on Geology was strongly
indentified (Geology is considered as being part of Geography and us taught in Science at the expense
of Chemistry and Physics); human reproduction and diseases are covered in Health/P.E. and should
be allocated to other learning areas, and why?
Issue 4: Sequencing issues: It was considered inappropriate to teach reproduction before students
have learnt about cells as they would not have the requisite prior knowledge (questions were also
raised about students‘ maturity level at this stage of learning); the Periodic table was regarded as
being taught too late (suggested that it be taught in year 8 with compounds and elements). What
specific recommendations can you make‖.
Issue 5: Lack of clarity: level of depth of content is unclear. Which parts of the curriculum are unclear,
and how can they be addressed?
Issue 6: Students‘ different interests, abilities and aspirations: How can these be addressed?
Issue 7: Science as a human endeavour strand: needs better articulation with the other two strands.
How can this be addressed?
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 205
Appendix I. List of Peak Body and Public Submissions
A total of 621 submissions were received: 199 from Peak Body and other authorities, and 422 from
the general public. All submissions were incorporated into this report.
Education Authorities State State
Association of Independent Schools of South Australia (AISSA) South Australia
Association of Independent Schools of Victoria Victoria
Association of Independent Schools of Western Australia (AISWA) Western Australia
Association of Independent Schools Queensland (AISQ) Queensland
Catholic Education Commission NSW New South Wales
Catholic Education Office WA Western Australia
Catholic Education South Australia South Australia
Curriculum Council of WA Western Australia
Department of Education (WA) Western Australia
Department of Education (TAS) Tasmania
Department of Education and Children's Services (SA) South Australia
Department of Education and Training (ACT) ACT
Department of Education and Training (NT) Northern Territory
Department of Education North Coast Region New South Wales
Independent Schools Victoria Victoria
Independent Schools Queensland Queensland
NSW Board of Studies with Department of Education and Training;
Catholic Education Commission; and Association of Independent Schools New South Wales
Queensland Catholic Education Commission Queensland
Queensland Studies Authority with Queensland Schooling Sectors Queensland
Tasmanian Catholic Education Office Tasmania
Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority (VCAA) with Department of
Education and Early Childhood Development; Catholic Education
Commission Victoria; and Independent Schools Victoria
Victoria
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 206
Schools State
Adventist Schools
Adventist Schools Australia Victoria
Ashbury Public School New South Wales
Australian Christian College Southlands Western Australia
Avila College Victoria
Barker College New South Wales
Brighton Prep Teachers Tasmania
Brisbane Girls Grammar School Queensland
Camberwell Girls Grammar School, Science Department Victoria
Cannon Hill Anglican College Queensland
Central Queensland Christian College Queensland
Chidlow Primary School and Ashdale Primary School Western Australia
Clayfield College Queensland
Corpus Christi College Bateman Western Australia
Danebank School, Mathematics Faculty New South Wales
Ellison Public School, P&C Session New South Wales
Fintona Girls' School Victoria
Fort Street High School New South Wales
Girraween Primary School Northern Territory
Glasshouse Country Christian College Queensland
Green Point Christian College New South Wales
Inala State School Queensland
International Grammar School New South Wales
John Calvin Schools of Australia
Mary MacKillop Catholic Regional College Victoria
Meriden School New South Wales
Mount Evelyn Christian School Victoria
Mt Hawthorn Primary School, Early Childhood Staff Western Australia
New Town High School Tasmania
North Sydney Girls High School New South Wales
Peninsula School Victoria
Prospect High School Queensland
Redeemer Baptist School New South Wales
Redlands Junior School New South Wales
Rooty Hill High School New South Wales
Ross Hill Public School New South Wales
SHORE, Sydney Church of England Grammar School New South Wales
South George Town Primary School Tasmania
St Augustine's College, Sydney New South Wales
St Bernard's Primary School New South Wales
St Clare's Primary School Victoria
St Dominic‘s College Western Australia
St Joseph's College Queensland
St Joseph's Nudgee College Queensland
St Leonard's College Victoria
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 207
St Patrick's Primary School Victoria
Sydney Church of England Grammar School New South Wales
Tara Anglican School for Girls New South Wales
The Geelong College Victoria
Trinity Catholic College Victoria
Walcha and Uralla Central Schools New South Wales
Universities State
Australian Catholic University, School of Education National
Griffith Institute of Educational Research, Griffith University Queensland
Victoria University, School of Education Victoria
University of South Australia, School of Education South Australia
University of Sydney, Faculty of Education and Social Work New South Wales
Business or Professional Associations Jurisdiction
3P Learning State
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) with Statistical Society of Australia
(SSAI) State
ACT Association for the Teaching of English State
ACT Council of Parents' and Citizens' Associations State
Association of Independent Schools of Western Australia (AISWA) Libraries National
Asia Education Foundation (AEF) National
Asian Studies Association of Australia National
Assyrian Chaldean Syriac Council of Australia National
Associated Christian Schools (ACS) National
Association of Special Education Administrators in Queensland National
Association of Special Schools Administrators in Queensland (ASEAQ) State
Australian Federation of SPELD Associations (AUSPELD) National
Australian Association for Environmental Education (AAEE) State
Australian Association for the Teaching of English (AATE) State
Australian Association of Christian Schools National
Australian Association of Mathematical Teachers (AAMT) National
Australian Association of Special Education (AASE) National
Australian College of Educators National
Australian Council of Heads of Mathematical Sciences National
Australian Council of Jewish Schools National
Australian Council of TESOL Associations (ACTA) National
Australian Curriculum Studies Association National
Australian Education Union (AEU) National
Australian Education Union: SA Branch State
Australian Government Primary Principals Association National
Australian Historical Association National
Australian Institute of Agricultural Science and Technology National
Australian Institute of Agricultural Science (NSW Division) State
Australian Institute of Physics National
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 208
Australian Linguistic Society National
Australian Mathematical Sciences Institute National
Australian Primary Principals Association National
Australian Science Teachers Association National
Australian Secondary Principal's Association National
Australian Securities & Investments Commission (ASIC) with Australian
Government Financial Literacy Board National
Australian Special Education Principals' Association National
Catholic Secondary Principals Australia National
Centenary Learning Alliance of State Schools National
Christian Education Ministries National
Christian Schools Australia National
Earth Science WA State
Education Research Solutions National
Engineers Australia National
English Teachers Association of NSW with Australian Literacy Educator's
Association (ALEA), and e:Lit Primary English Teaching Association State
English Teacher's Association NSW: Wagga Wagga Branch State
English Teachers Association of QLD State
ESL Educators (SA Inc) State
Free Reformed School Association National
Gene Technology Access Centre National
Geography Teachers Association of Victoria (GTAV) State
GTAV Global Educators National
History Teachers' Association of Australia National
History Teachers' Association of Victoria (HTAV) State
ICT Co-ordinators of the Catholic Education National
Illawarra Science Teachers Association State
Independent Education Union: QLD and NT Branch State
Innovative Research Universities National
Institute for Innovation in Science and Mathematics Foundation (IISME) National
Institute of Surveyors NSW State
Marine Teachers Association of Queensland State
Mathematical Association of NSW State
Mathematical Association of Victoria State
Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (MERGA) National
Museums Australia Education National Network (MAENN) National
National Committee for Chemistry National
National Independent Special Schools Association (NISSA) National
NSW Association of Agriculture Teachers State
NSW Primary Principals' Association (NSWPPA) State
NSW Secondary Principals' Council State
NSW SSP Principals Network State
NSW Teachers Federation State
Primary Industries Education Foundation National
Primary Industries Education Foundation: NSW Division State
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 209
Principal's Association of Victorian Catholic Secondary Schools National
Queensland Resources Council (QRC) Queensland
Royal Australian Chemical Institute National
Royal Geographical Society of Queensland State
Science Teachers Association of NSW State
Science Teachers' Association of Victoria State
Science Teachers' Association of WA State
Social Educators Association of Australia National
South Australian English Teachers Association State
Space to Grow Project Team, Macquarie University National
Tasmanian Association for the Teaching of English State
Tasmanian Centre for Global Learning State
Tasmanian Association for Teaching of English State
The Victorian Principals Association State
Unions NSW State
VicTESOL State
Victorian Association for the Teaching of English: Curriculum Committee State
Western Australian Aboriginal Education and Training Council State
Western Australia School Library Association State
Western Australian Education Support Principals and Administrators'
Association (WAESPAA) State
Westralian Association of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other
Languages (WATESOL)
State
Community Organisations State
Adam Lindsay Gordon Commemorative Committee
Australian Christian Lobby
Australian National Flag Association of Queensland
Blind Citizens Australia
Deaf Society of NSW New South Wales
Ethnic Communities Council of Victoria Victoria
Executive Council of Australian Jewry
Gifted Learners Group
Global Education Centre
Historic Houses Trust of NSW New South Wales
Islamic Council of Victoria Victoria
Papua New Guinea Association of Australia
Rabaul and Montevideo Maru Society
Together for Humanity Foundation
Water Corporation
Government Organisations State
Community Relations Commission New South Wales
Department of Environment and Conservation WA Western Australia
Federal Coalition New South Wales
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 210
NSW Agriculture Ministerial Advisory Council New South Wales
Other Authorities State
Catholic Education Commission
Catholic Education Office, Sydney New South Wales
Catholic Education Office, Sydney Southern Region Mathematics
Coordinators New South Wales
Catholic Schools in the Maitland-Newcastle Diocese Western Australia
Catholic Education Office, Diocese of Parramatta New South Wales
Catholic Education Office, Diocese of Wollongong New South Wales
Catholic Education Office, Diocese of Parramatta New South Wales
Catholic Education Office of Western Australia Western Australia
South Australian Commission for Catholic Schools South Australia
Public Submissions
A. Fisher
A. Maurer
Adam and Liv
Adam Joseph
Adrian and Thea Byl
Adrian Wiles
Aileen Hawkes
Alan Barr
Alan Barry
Alan Phillips
Alex and June Mills
Alec Mills
Alicia Kemp
Alvaro Vera
Amanda Baird, Caroline Semey, and Rama Shriram
Amanda Clements
Andrew Eaton
Andrew Fellenberg
Andrew Foster
Andrew Hansen
Andrew Thompson
Andy Edwards
Angela and Michael Apperley
Angela D'Angelo
Angela Kotsiras
Angie Janus
Anita Bailey
Ann Carmichael
Ann Hyde
Anna Blamey
Anna Uren
Anne Dwyer
Anne Horan
Anne McGrath
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 211
Anne Wynstra
Annele Cook, Bradley Wood, and Madeline Woodbridge
Annie and Mal Matthews
Anthony Arthur
Anthony Shaddock
Barbara Tassell
Barry Medwell
Beate Stalph
Belina Jenkins
Belinda
Belinda Elliot
Belinda Letchford
Ben Caines
Bev Fruin
Beverly Kemp
Beverly Lowe
Bill Tibben
Bob Aikenhead
Bob Bawden
Bozenna Hinton
Brailey Sims
Brian Garland
Brian James
Britta Page
Brooke Twine
Bruce Mansfield
Bruce Young-Smith, Grant Lindsey, and Tracey Myles
Bryant de Vos
Cameron Paterson
Cameron Samuels
Candy Gray
Carol Smith
Carole Haeusler
Caroline Clancy
Caroline Leach
Caroline Ostrowski
Cary Stocks
Cassie-Jane Ryan
Catherine Beavis
Catherine Hudson
Catherine McDonald
Catherine Patson
Cathy McDonald
Chek Ling
Chesleigh Hargreaves
Chris Blundell
Chris Honan
Chris Kubara
Chris Payne
Chris Wainwright
Chrissy Monteleone
Christine Crump
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 212
Cindy Seden
Cindy Tyler-Tourle
Claire Clayton
Claire Counsins
Claire Rafferty
Colin Brennan
Corey Wood
Daniel Nichols
Darryl Deacon
David Brooke-Taylor
David Brown
David Chapman
David Haarburger
David Heffernan
David Hope
David Hutton
David Long
David Norrish
David Skewes
De-ana Mitchell
Deb McPherson
Debbie Walker
Deborah Henderson
Debra Dolman
Deidra Bull
Dennis Pitman
Derek Synnot
Diane Tomlinson
Dianne Wright
Dione Parker
Dorothy Raymond
Doug Hammond
Dougal Nivison
E. Woods
Elizabeth Boland
Elle Hughes
Ellen McGovern
Elliot A.
Emil Russin
Emma Hall. Pippa Doube, and Sarah Klein
Emma Widenstrom
Erika Lees
Eva LaRocca
Eve Recht
F. Reeves
Fiona Nolan
Fiona Tudman
Flavia Santamaria
Frances Wood
Francesco Abata
Garry Collins
Gary Carey
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 213
Gary Cox
Geoffrey Sluggett
George Wardle
Georgia Phillips
Gillian Nikakis
Gillian Odell
Glen Sawle
Glenn Osboldstone
Glenn Rockelmann
Glenn Wittick
Graeme Lovell
Graeme Young
Grant Grosser
Greg Bland
Greg Plier
Greg Williams
Gretchen Blair
Hal Pritchard
Hanya Stefaniuk, Amanda Bourke, Nell Lynes, and Margaret Turnbull
Heather Hogan
Helen Brown
Helen Kinsella
Helen Nicholson
Helen Skyes
Howard Tebble
Huy Tran, Michelle Knights, and Adrienne Ferre
Ian Milton
Ian Watkins
Jackie Thomson
Jacob van Duyn
James Angel
James Dalziel
James Haire
James Richardson
Jan and Garry Grainger
Jan Simpson
Jane Armstrong
Jane Cowan
Janis Humphries
Jeannet Hodges
Jeannie Douglas
Jennie Duke
Jennifer McLean
Jenny Burchfield
Jenny Goetz
Jenny Gregory
Jenny Merrick
Jenny Stephens
Jill Kearney
Jo Rogers
Joan Burfitt
Joan Bussemaker
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 214
Joanne Cardullo
Joanne Collis
Jodie Matthews
Joe Grant
Joel Chandler
Joel Savory
John Adams
John and Angela Yiannakis
John Butters
John Coop
John Howard
John Mack
John Moses
John Murray
John Muskovits
John Taylor
John Travers
Jorge Sousa
Joy Payne
Joy Schultz
Joy Verrinder
Joy Waring
Judie Cross
Judith Wakeman
Judy Gordon
Juhani Tuovinen
Julianne Willis
Julie Aschberger
Julie Kennelly
Justin Nelson
Justine Osborne
Karen Lynch
Karen Wilson
Kate Atkins
Kate Gillespie
Kate Locke
Kate McKenzie
Kate Russo
Kathryn Hopps
Kathryn Sutherland
Katie Lewis
Katrina Parker
Keith Currie
Keith Innes
Ken Hart
Kerrie-Anne Fellenbergk
Kerry Kimberly
Kevin Farrell
Klaaske Grenwood
Lauren Kanton
Leo Morris
Leonie O'Connell
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 215
Leslie Dale
Libby Timcke, Phil Davies, and Richard Campbell
Lily Som, Dan Brown, and Christina Tang
Linda Koopman
Lorna Jarrett
Lorraine van Haeften
Lorraine White
Luise Lowndes
Lynette Boyd
Lynne Matson
M. and A. Wilkinson
Madeleine Costello, Trishna Sohal, and Naomi Weiler
Madelyne Hammel
Malcolm Spargo
Mallihai Tambyah
Mami Mizushima
Manar Chelebi
Maree Senn
Margaret Handreck
Margaret MacGinley
Margaret White
Maria Ball
Maria Boucher
Marie Martin and Anna Alderson
Marie-Therese Sweeney
Marilyn Bradbury
Marina Lever
Marion McIntosh
Mark Fletcher
Mark Florence
Martin Riley
Mary Senj
Maryke Russell
Mary-Lou Michael
Matt Fox
Max Coltheart, Kevin Wheldall, Kerry Hempenstall, Molly de Lemos, and
Yvonne Meyer
Melina Tensen
Meredith O'Connor
Meredith Plaisted
Meriel Rule and Chris McAuley
Michael and Deb
Michael Barra
Michael Binkowski
Michael Cathcart
Michael Deakin
Michael Denmead
Michael Doyle
Michael Field
Michael Linich
Michael McManus
Michael Watt
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 216
Michelle Hamilton
Mike Chamberlain
Mike McGarry
Monica Woo
Narelle Barker
Nathan Dolbel
Nathan Hoffman
Neil McLeish
Nick Pacitti
Nick Ward
Nick Weideman
Nicole Lawder
Nicole Roue
Nicole Smith
Nicole Stanton
Noel Patson
Norm Hoffman
Owen Hasler
Pat Johnson
Pat Naughtin
Patricia Bosel
Patricia Fraser
Patricia Hollington
Patrick Bourke
Paul Ganderton
Paula Burns
Pauline Killender
Penny Pedersen
Peta Jackson
Peter Abetz
Peter Glazebrook
Peter Grootenboer
Peter Kadar
Peter Mee
Peter Moraitis
Peter Napier
Petra Stuart
Phil and Adele Pring
Philip O'Carroll
Pia Waugh
Prue Gill
R. Dick
R. Harding
Rachel Morgan
Rachelle Kerin
Rachelle Leveque, Bethany Hannie, and Sarah Hellyer
Rebecca Ristic
Rebecca Smyth
Richard Acheson
Richard Jacobs
Richard Jamison
Richard Opie
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 217
Rita Camilleri
Rita Zammit
Robert Kenrick
Robert Money
Robert Sieminski
Robin Clarke
Robin Gordon
Robin Nagy
Robyn Hamilton
Rod Blitvich
Rodney Huddleston
Rosalie Triolo
Rose Chinotto
Rosemary Leader
Roslyn Phillips
Ross Gwyther
Rowena Dudgeon
Royce Vermeulen
Russell Ives
Ruth Reynolds
S. Stephens
S. Woods
Samara Chisholm
Sandra England
Sara Powter
Sarah Barton
Sarah Walker
Scott Adamson
Shana Wales
Shanty Wilson
Sharon Cramp-Oliver and Danielle Graham
Sharon Iacono
Sharon Willoughby
Sheena Walters
Sheree Petty
Shirely Culhane
Shonagh Hartas
Simon Potter
Skye Harrison
Sonia Venour
Stephanie Hanscamp
Stephen and Anthe Williams
Stephen Breen
Stephen Brennan
Stephen Bridges
Stephen Hughes
Stephen Kelly
Stephen Murray
Stephen Wilson
Steve and Ruth
Steve Ryan
Stuart Taylor
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 218
Sue Brown
Susan Feez
Susan Smith
Suzy Wilson
Tania Anway and Katie Miller
Tania Grey
Tanya Litwinczuk
Teneha Greco
Terry O'Brien
Terry Shore
Terry Wheeldon
Tim and Naomi Morris
Tim Kapodistrias
Toni Hurley
Tracy
Trish Martin
Trish Pollett
Valerie Clark
Veronica Waters
Vince Summers
Vivienne Pearson
Warwick Barry
William Ardern
Yvette Vignando
Zannah Stredwick
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 219
Appendix J. Australian Curriculum Consultation Portal –
Teacher Questionnaire (School Trial)
Thank you for agreeing to complete the following questionnaire. Could you please email the
completed questionnaire to trialschools@acara.edu.au by 30 May 2010.
The aim of this stage is to collect your feedback, reactions and comments to the site and to highlight
any issues to be addressed in the subsequent review of the website.
Section 1 – Demographic details
Please enter the following details:
Q 1.1 Your State/Territory:
Q 1.2 Your teaching experience (please
tick):
Primary
Secondary
K-12
Special
Other (please specify):
Q 1.3 List Key Learning Areas taught
(if applicable):
Q 1.4 Role in your school (e.g. Principal,
Curriculum Coordinator, Year Level
Coordinator / Learning Area
Coordinator etc):
Section 2 – Your reactions to the website: Home Page
Q 2.1 What do you like about how the Home Page is presented?
Q2.2 What do you dislike about how the Home Page is presented?
Q 2.3 What would you change (add, remove, revise)?
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 220
Section 3 – Your reactions to the website: LEARN link
Q 3.1 What do you like about how the information is presented?
Q 3.2 What do you dislike about how the information is presented?
Q 3.3 What would you change (add, remove, revise)?
Section 4 – Your reactions to the website: EXPLORE link
Q 4.1 What do you like about how the information is presented?
Q 4.2 What do you dislike about how the information is presented?
Q4.3 What would you change (add, remove, revise)?
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 221
Section 5 – Your GENERAL reactions to the website
Q 5.1 Describe your initial and subsequent reactions to the website.
Q 5.2 Which features of the website did you most value? Why?
Q 5.2 Which features of the website did you least value? Why?
Q 5.3 Are there any major improvements you would recommend?
Q 5.4 How do you think Australian teachers might respond to the way information is presented on this
website?
Section 6 Any other comments
Please provide any other comments regarding the Australian Curriculum Consultation Portal
Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. We care what you think! Your input is
very valuable.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 222
Appendix K. List of Online Pilot Trial Schools
Total number of schools: 87
Trial Schools - ACT
Ainslie
Garran
Monash
St Edmund‘s
St Xavier‘s
Trial Schools - NSW
Barker College
Bega
Blacktown Girls School
Calrossy Anglican
Cooma
Gib Gate
Heritage Christian
Ironbark Ridge
Kambala
Kariong
Mt George
Trial Schools - NT
Darwin High School
Gapuwiyak
Larapinta
Nightcliff
Sacred Heart
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 223
Trial Schools - QLD
Forest Lake
John Pauk
Kawana
Narangba
Nudgee
Patrick‘s Road
St Ambrose
St Andrew‘s
St Joseph‘s
Sunshine Beach
Townsville Grammar
Upper Coomera
Western Cape
Trial Schools - SA
Caritas
Christie Beaches
Findon High School
Goolwa
Holy Family
Indulkana
Millicent
Mt Gambier
Retnella
St Michael‘s
Unity College
Walford
West Lakes Shore
Wilderness
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 224
Trial Schools - TAS
Campbell School
Christie Beaches
Friend‘s School
Kingston
Learning Services North
Riana
Rose Bay High
Sacred Heart Catholic School
Spreyton
St Michael‘s
Youngtown
Trial Schools - VIC
Aquinas College
Bellaire
Belmont
Camelot Rise
Eltham High School
Glen Waverly
Holy Spirit
Montpellier
Roslyn Primary School
St Andrew‘s
St Augustine‘s
St Carlo Borromeo's Primary School
St Catherine‘s
St Columbia‘s
St Francis Xavier
Vermont South Special
Vermont Special School
Victory Christain
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 225
Trial Schools - WA
Bunbury Cathedral Grammar School
Geraldton Grammar School
Holy Cross
La Salle
Lake Joondalup
Living Waters
Parkfield
Perth College
St Hilda‘s
Subiaco
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 226
Appendix L. Mathematics national forum – Specific
content/sequencing recommendations
Algebra
Include more explicit development of the pre-algebraic understanding, e.g.
equality, relationships between operations, using mathematical symbols.
Ensure that the development of algebraic thinking progresses in all year levels
e.g. missing in Year 6
Ensure algebraic thinking is linked across strands e.g. variation in statistics in Yr
6
Focus on patterns in early years to lead into algebraic thinking in middle and
later years
Don‘t bring in formal algebra too early – perhaps not before Yr 8
Needs to be called algebraic thinking in all levels (not number patterns)
Include more explicit development of the pre-algebraic understanding e.g.
equality, relationships between operations, using mathematical symbols.
Representing and modelling situations mathematically is missing in years 4 to 6.
The sequence of development of pre-algebra concepts cannot be tracked
through the primary to secondary years.
Geometry
K: Within content descriptors include ―in different orientations‖ before the word
environment.
K: Student should be able to sort and informally describe 3D shapes.
Year 1: Too much emphasis on 3D shapes when it should still be informal
exposure.
Year 1: Eliminate words ―such as number of corners or faces or length of sides‖
in shapes.
Year 2: Students should make 3D shapes, not draw them.
Year 6: No content at all that further develops patterning concepts.
Euclidian proofs may not be appropriate or accessible for all students.
Statistics
Constructing pie charts in year 6 should move to understanding pie charts –
focus on decisions about charts, not constructing them.
Emphasis on stem plots and back to back stem plots – rather a range of ways to
represent data including stem plots (and others).
Bivariate statistics is introduced too early, as are some of the graphical forms.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 227
In a couple of the years the term ―dot plots‖ is used and linked to the notion of
―many to one‖. Dot plots are generally ―one to one‖. Need to separate the idea
of many to one to align with picture graphs, not with dot plots.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 228
Appendix M. Mathematics national forum – Specific
achievement standard recommendations
Year
Level
K There is a need to add an Achievement Standard for patterning/algebraic thinking.
1 Addition/subtraction don‘t match content descriptors. They are also much more
specific than K and possibly too high.
2 Mention time in achievement standard. Are students at this age capable of
conservation of number?
3 Replace the word ―understand‖ with read, write, order and compare numbers to 1000.
Size of fraction not related to ¼ and ½ turn (angles, time).
4 Over-emphasis on data and data representations, no reference to fraction
understanding. Patterns with two operations is appropriate for Year 6/7 not Year 4
5
Content says use everyday use of % but the standard states ‗relates fractions to
decimals and %‘ which is too high in regard to percent. Mode median and range should
be in Year 7. Calculating volume is not suitable for Year 5.
6 Rate and ratio should only be introduced as it is more of a year 7 focus. Continued
focus on large numbers but integers not appropriate developmentally at Year 6
9 Is it necessary to mention Pythagoras? ―Developing fluency‖ is good ―Skilful use‖ is too
high an expectation.
Draft K-10 Curriculum Consultation Report v4 229
Appendix N. Science national forum – Specific
content/sequencing-related recommendations
Year
Level
K-2 In general, the early years science curriculum was not considered content heavy.
3-6
Year 4 needs to introduce energy.
Remove fossils from year 4.
Respiration and photosynthesis should be addressed in basic terms in primary.
More reference to the human body from year 5 onwards.
Electricity in year 5 could be moved into year 6 sustainable energy transformations.
7-10
Chemistry sequence needs to be reworked from years 6 to 9. The learning is out of
order: mixtures in year 8 and separation in year 7.
Combining topics could help, especially in year 7.
Radiation, alpha and beta particles are introduced too early in year 9.
Astronomy overlaps and then has a big jump at year 10 with the Big Bang.
DNA and genetic should be in year 10.
top related